Screen capture DVR

  • 97
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Not Planned
Have you ever found yourself in the situation where you wish you would have recorded the screen? This often happens when you want to report an issue to your IT department or report a bug in software. Screen capture DVR would have an always running recording of the last 30 seconds or so. You could just hit a hotkey and it would save off the video and open in Snagit Editor. Ready to share.
Photo of Chris Larson

Chris Larson, Snagit Technical Product Manager

  • 595 Posts
  • 324 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 97
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7863 Posts
  • 4286 Reply Likes
I think it's good in theory but a terrible idea. I'm with Rick Stone on this one

I don't see how a screen recorder running at all times, doesn't suck the life out of a low powered computer and take away from the overall performance of all others.
Especially when rendering a video or doing some other computer intensive work.

Even a low quality recording will have an impact because it's always running.

I have 16GB of RAM and its not enough,I don't want to share any with this recording device either.

If you implement such a thing. Make sure we can disable it. Because I don't want it sucking the life out of my other programs. Thanks but no thanks.

I'll record my screen when I think it's necessary.

Regards,Joe

(Edited)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7863 Posts
  • 4286 Reply Likes
Hello there David Pepper,

Here's the point I've been trying to get across.
I even did some testing earlier today.
 To see how much of a resource hog SnagIt would be when capturing video on a 2560 x 1440 monitor at it's lowest quality setting.
However, when SnagIt was set to capture high quality video.The results were almost identical.So, it's almost insignificant which setting is used,none the less. I was trying to make this a computer friendly test.

I didn't scale it down to a blurry 1920 x 1080 resolution automatically.



With SnagIt open and running at Idol it consumes "0%" of my CPU and "0%" of GPU.



In it's current configuration,
with the Screen Recorder running it consumes "15%" of my CPU on average and "30%" of my GPU.


   
My computer is 4 years old. My CPU is still a high quality processor compared to what's available today.
  My  GPU  is a high end card but position toward the lower end of the spectrum.

Dell Computer SPECS.

XPS 8700

4th Generation Intel Core i7-4770 processor (8M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz)

16GB RAM Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz - 4 DIMMs EA - -

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 1.5GB GDDR5 EA - -    Supporting   4 Displays


So ask yourself this. Are you willing to sacrifice that much computing power"At All Times!" across the board.

I don't see this equates to practical or cost efficient, hobbling computers throughout an entire companies workforce.

On the off chance someone will record a error from time to time?  

That's my final 2 cents for now.

Just think what this would do to a lower powered computer with integrated graphics. The loss of CPU resources would certainly climb higher. 

Regards,Joe
 
(Edited)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7863 Posts
  • 4286 Reply Likes
Hey Dave,

Someone using basic to moderately demanding computer tools and a high end computer shouldn't be effected by a screen recording app running all the time.

A specialized app to handle the job. Transferring data to a digital recording device of some sort. Would probably be the best option? That way nobody has to lift a finger in the field or know what needs to be done.

I run demanding software on a regular basis. So I tend to have tunnel vision with regards to computer resources.

Interesting subject {:> )

Regards,Joe
Photo of Glenn Hoeppner

Glenn Hoeppner, Employee

  • 1874 Posts
  • 358 Reply Likes
For the sake of conversation, I think it's safe to assume that the recorder would not have much impact on the performance of your other apps.

-Glenn
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7863 Posts
  • 4286 Reply Likes
Depends on the application, here's 2 instances where that's not the case.

Here's Premiere Pro running at 88% CPU usage. I'm simply previewing 4K footage in the source monitor. The computer sucks up everything else to 99% usage.There is no head room for your recorder.


Here's After Effects.It's running at 87% in this image.


Here's SnagIt's recorder running at it's lowest setting consuming 14.7% of my CPU and 30% of my GPU.



I could fire up Crazy Talk Animator 3, Character Animator, Turbo Floor Plan 3-D, Cinema 4-D and a whole host of other programs that push my CPU to levels higher than 85% on their own.
But I think I've made my point without countless screen shots.

The leftover crumbs "15%"of the CPU is required to keep the computers other hardware functioning.

 Regards,Joe

To make a blanket statement that.........

For the sake of conversation, I think it's safe to assume that the recorder would not have much impact on the performance of your other apps.

That might apply if SnagIt users didn't use any resource hungry software.

Reducing the efficiency of my CPU by 15% and my GPU by 30% on the off chance I might record a crash or bug is not worth it.
And it would impose a noticeable impact on performance with numbers like these.
 
(Edited)
Photo of Glenn Hoeppner

Glenn Hoeppner, Employee

  • 1874 Posts
  • 358 Reply Likes
What I'm getting at is that we know there are performance concerns. If those weren't an issue, is it still a valid feature or not?

-Glenn
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7863 Posts
  • 4286 Reply Likes
I really don't see how you can run a recorder in the background without tapping into system resources to do so.

Clearly, if the feature could be toggled on and off. It's a valid feature for those wanting to run it.

I regard it as a tool with little use for me.
 
On the rare occasion I crash a program. Auto-Save does more for me than a screen recording ever will.

It sounds like a great feature for tech support in some situations.

I'm not saying I couln't find some rare use situation to use it. But overall, It's just not a feature for me.

Regards,Joe