Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GSdx Built-in video capture
#1
Hello. I have a project underway where I'm trying to capture all cutscenes in a game, and later on edit them using Avidemux (since VirtualDub can't import to .mp4 which is the optimal container for YouTube).

I basically have two ways to do this.

One is to record using Fraps. This works well, except that it makes PCSX2 prone to FPS dips, and even a single small dip is enough to ruin the video, since it makes the video and especially sound stutter / get horribly distorted. This flaw will then be present in the video clip as well, and I have to start all over again. In many cutscenes there's even a part that is always prone to lagging, which means it's impossible to record without a noticeable FPS dip. (And before anyone asks, I have a i5 2500k @4.5GHz, so... Tongue)

Another way is to use PCSX2's built-in capture system. It's slow, but it results in perfect footage. Problem is, the Uncompressed format seems to produce 'yuv422' video (according to 'Mean' who I think is the main coder of Avidemux) which Avidemux doesn't really tolerate. I can't preview the resulting clip in in the program without it crashing spectacularly, so syncing it with the co-produced audio is—as you can imagine—extremely laborious and frustrating.

I tried to get around this by selecting another format from the built-in capture system, but if I select Fraps Video Decompressor, it doesn't produce any video as a result. Capture is started and ended just fine according to the PCSX2 text console, but no file is created. The remaining options I have are compressed codecs, which are either impossible to edit later on, or result in immense quality loss when I have to encode the video twice to get it encoded right while adding the audio.

Now, my question: Is there any other uncompressed format that I can use for PCSX2's built-in capture, than the original 'Uncompressed' which doesn't work properly in most video editing software? Isn't there a yuv420 (more common, apparently) alternative? Anything? If not, what approach should I take to acquire smooth footage that can actually be edited too? =___=

I'd also like to take this chance to say that the capture system is rather inconvenient. It seems you can't specify the location where the audio clip is saved (it's always saved in the PCSX2 folder with the name 'recording.wav'), and I also have no idea how to assign the produced clips pre-set names so I wouldn't have to change it each time I record a new clip (to avoid the earlier clip being overridden).

Thanks in advance, all help is very much appreciated. :3
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
I've been using x264vfw for that reason exactly and it works perfectly (although I'm using virtualdub for muxing). Youtube works fine with avi files too, I've done this in over 50 videos and all came out great in 1080p quality.
So grab it here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/x264vfw/
Select it from the GSdx capture window and set it to lossless, check fast decode,zero latency and preset very fast. That will give you some nice FPS with lossless video capture
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Alright, if VDub can indeed mux audio to already-x264-encoded clips without problems, I'll keep that as my plan-B. I already have x264vfw, and was planning to use it with Avidemux. Youtube does work fine with avi but they recommend mp4, and for this project I want to get as close as I can to the specs here: http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/st...e=guide.cs
I wish to get the best possible quality I can for Youtube (within reason, obviously; the file size mustn't grow to gargantuan proportions). Otherwise I'd use VDub which I'm more familiar with and which isn't as cranny with some formats as Avidemux.

Will selecting 'fast decode' affect the quality? Guess not since it's lossless, but then why does it exist as an option that can be turned off?
Reply
#4
Container doesn't matter with youtube end quality, if possible you'd want to upload the lossless file, as long as youtube can decode it it will reencode according to their fixed preset. If this is not possible then just play with CRF while staying within reasonable h.264 level so youtube can read the video.

Those tuning are useful if you want to host the unaltered video yourself, it doesn't matter on youtube since again, they reencode the video in the end anyway regardless of whatever setting you used.
Reply
#5
I wonder why it is then that they suggest you use the mp4 container rather than the way more common avi... And if they suggest you upload video in h.264 / AAC, why would they re-encode it if it is in that format? Wouldn't the recommendation imply that their system is optimized for receiving such footage rather than uncompressed?

Is there really no other way of recording lossless video with the capture tool, that would work in Avidemux? =\ VDub doesn't even let you encode audio in AAC.
Reply
#6
Just use avi. It's the exact same thing for youtube. They probably recommend mp4 for n00bs.
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#7
(08-25-2012, 02:27 AM)S3lvah Wrote: I wonder why it is then that they suggest you use the mp4 container rather than the way more common avi... And if they suggest you upload video in h.264 / AAC, why would they re-encode it if it is in that format? Wouldn't the recommendation imply that their system is optimized for receiving such footage rather than uncompressed?

Is there really no other way of recording lossless video with the capture tool, that would work in Avidemux? =\ VDub doesn't even let you encode audio in AAC.

No idea, but I've uploaded tons of MKV with no problem whatsoever. They suggest h.264 and AAC simply because it currently has the best size/quality ratio (debatable with AAC but undisputed for h.264), yet they have to ensure that the playback is flawless on their site thus the video need some specialized encoding setting for streaming, there's simply no way to enforce this to (largely clueless) users.

If you don't believe me, then you can see for yourself. Try to compare your original before-upload video mediainfo with youtube-uploaded one.

You should encode the audio separately with the more specialized encoder (Nero AAC is the most popular and relatively fuss-free), then mux it with mkvtoolnix or mp4box.
Reply
#8
@Bositman: mp4 has a better quality/size rate than avi according to most (reliable) sources. Do you mean I should just make it avi for simplicity's sake, at the cost of larger files (so the quality wouldn't be any worse)?

@naoan: That's quite a lot of work though... Record uncompressed yuv422 at 20 fps recording speed (because of how heavy it is), encode it with x264 to .mp4 format, encode audio separately to AAC, mux them together. There are some 70 clips in the game, and having to use 3 programs instead of 1 for editing makes a huge difference in editing time. Wacko
Reply
#9
You can make a batch script to combine all the work since most of the tools provide command line (x264, neroaac, mkvtoolnix, not sure with mp4box but I think it has one).
Reply
#10
(08-25-2012, 02:37 AM)Bositman Wrote: Just use avi. It's the exact same thing for youtube. They probably recommend mp4 for n00bs.

no it isn't

AVI doesn't support soft subs, embedded fonts, sub animations and multiple audio tracks.

MP4 does all of the above (with some limits on the sub animations) allowing for the user to toggle things like audio language and subtitles in the youtube player.

(08-25-2012, 03:58 AM)S3lvah Wrote: @Bositman: mp4 has a better quality/size rate than avi according to most (reliable) sources. Do you mean I should just make it avi for simplicity's sake, at the cost of larger files (so the quality wouldn't be any worse)?

avi and mp4 are container types, AVI can hold the same audio/video formats as mp4 but can't contain the stuff i mentioned above

another limitation of AVI is that the video aspect is directly linked to the video resolution, where as you can adjust the resolution of mp4s and mkv's and maintain the original aspect controls
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)