Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why is the built in recording heavy on the CPU
#1
Im just trying to learn things about pcsx2 and one of things I'm curious about is why the recording is so harsh on the CPU? I use it all the time for gameplay and get 5fps when recording. It doesn't bug me at all believe it or not. I only use built in recorders because it captures every frame. im very thankfull for that.
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Video compression on the fly is a CPU intensive process. This is one area where more cores can be quite helpful though. If you have enough HDD space, you might consider using a faster (but less space efficient) codec like huffyuv or similar.
Reply
#3
(12-14-2011, 04:22 AM)natt Wrote: Video compression on the fly is a CPU intensive process. This is one area where more cores can be quite helpful though. If you have enough HDD space, you might consider using a faster (but less space efficient) codec like huffyuv or similar.

Well i use xvid for codec but the others seem to not really give speed up. Its just weird that it has such a big effect on the cpu
Reply
#4
(12-14-2011, 04:56 AM)peronmls Wrote: Well i use xvid for codec but the others seem to not really give speed up. Its just weird that it has such a big effect on the cpu

No, it's not weird at all. On the contrary, it's totally expected. As said before, video encoding takes a LOT of CPU, and more cores will help (as some will be used by PCSX2 while others will be used for video encoding).

To speed it up you can try the following workarounds:
- Reduce the video dimensions (e.g. save 640x480 instead of HD = 1920x1080).
- Choose faster codec (such as huffyuv or MJPEG etc, which will usually create a much larger video file which you'll have to re-compress later).
- Upgrade your CPU/system.

Sorry, but there's no magic bullet here...
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply
#5
I could never get the recorder to work. I use Fraps instead.

Here are some videos I recorded on PCSX2 with Fraps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WsDasQwZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2wOm8vslyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gUArz71-Iw
Reply
#6
Fraps creates bad looking videos though, compared to the built-in encoder.
As avih suggested, try a fast and modern encoder like x264 with the fast preset.
Reply
#7
youtube videos look blurry anyway. you could just go with a xvid on 4M and it wouldn't look the same.

hell no. x264 is really good and fast. if it would be possible to capture at 30 fps and gsmute every 2nd frame to have power to compute the video, that would make it more efficient. Wink
Reply
#8
(12-14-2011, 10:40 AM)avih Wrote: No, it's not weird at all. On the contrary, it's totally expected. As said before, video encoding takes a LOT of CPU, and more cores will help (as some will be used by PCSX2 while others will be used for video encoding).

To speed it up you can try the following workarounds:
- Reduce the video dimensions (e.g. save 640x480 instead of HD = 1920x1080).
- Choose faster codec (such as huffyuv or MJPEG etc, which will usually create a much larger video file which you'll have to re-compress later).
- Upgrade your CPU/system.

Sorry, but there's no magic bullet here...

Well what I ment by weird was that it doesn't look like it would take a lot of CPU but it's going to be real slow now matter what because I record with a internal res of 4096X4096 to get the best picture. I'm just curious about it. I'm not wanting help on it. Also I noticed when you're done record, the video frames look so smooth its unreal but when I convert it again they look like normal frames. Do you know what I'm talking about? Its kinda hard to explain.

Reply
#9
(12-14-2011, 07:22 PM)peronmls Wrote: Also I noticed when you're done record, the video frames look so smooth its unreal but when I convert it again they look like normal frames. Do you know what I'm talking about? Its kinda hard to explain.

Well, the original output is (in many cases) going to be at 60fps, and this can be described as "ultra smooth". If it no longer looks "ultra smooth" after transcoding, then something happened in the transcoding step, so the question would be how are you transcoding (what program, what codecs and settings, etc).
Reply
#10
(12-14-2011, 07:30 PM)natt Wrote: Well, the original output is (in many cases) going to be at 60fps, and this can be described as "ultra smooth". If it no longer looks "ultra smooth" after transcoding, then something happened in the transcoding step, so the question would be how are you transcoding (what program, what codecs and settings, etc).

I use Xvid and to put the audio together I have used Windows Moviemaker, Sony Vegas and camtasia. When I save it all together again I use either use Xvid or DivX. and what i mean normal frames I mean it just looks like normal ps2 gameplay. (no Lag)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)