SnagIt hasn't worked correctly with large multi-monitor systems since v9 or so. I've reported this to support several times over the last several years. Only today did they tell me that the developers don't actually see the info unless it gets posted here in addition to making a support request..
The problem appears to be related to SnagIt not being designed for large desktops (by large I mean >50 megapixels. My desktop is 132mp (16 4K monitors).
The symptoms are that SnagIt will start with system startup, but when you hit the shortcut key (or capture manually), it crashes without doing any capture. It appears that it is choking when it tries to process the size of the desktop).
I can say from memory that in PREVIOUS versions, the limit was very low - around 8 2K monitors = about 30 megapixels. But that was a few years ago in v 10 or v11. I have re-tested it using the lastest version on my 132mp system and get the same results.
This has been reported to support at least a dozen times. I absolutely LOVED snagit back when it used to work correctly on large systems (pre v9), and I even ran an old version for a few years to cope with the fact that newer versions no longer worked. But I lost the old install kit and all recent versions fail with the same symptoms.
DEVELOPERS: What better opportunity to hit your boss up for a REAL test system! It's obvious you guys have never tested this product on a serious multi-monitor system (100mp+). Curiously, it worked fine pre-v9, although at that time I was only running a "girly man" 30mp system. Hit the boss up, get yourselves a real test system, and fix the product so I can buy it again, please. I miss it SOOO much!!!
Thanks,
Erik
p.s. I'm running a 128GB system. The issue is not lack of system resources. The problem appears to be that SnagIt was never designed/tested on very large desktops and there must be an integer overflow or some other issue causing it to choke when you run it on a serious multi-monitor system.
The problem appears to be related to SnagIt not being designed for large desktops (by large I mean >50 megapixels. My desktop is 132mp (16 4K monitors).
The symptoms are that SnagIt will start with system startup, but when you hit the shortcut key (or capture manually), it crashes without doing any capture. It appears that it is choking when it tries to process the size of the desktop).
I can say from memory that in PREVIOUS versions, the limit was very low - around 8 2K monitors = about 30 megapixels. But that was a few years ago in v 10 or v11. I have re-tested it using the lastest version on my 132mp system and get the same results.
This has been reported to support at least a dozen times. I absolutely LOVED snagit back when it used to work correctly on large systems (pre v9), and I even ran an old version for a few years to cope with the fact that newer versions no longer worked. But I lost the old install kit and all recent versions fail with the same symptoms.
DEVELOPERS: What better opportunity to hit your boss up for a REAL test system! It's obvious you guys have never tested this product on a serious multi-monitor system (100mp+). Curiously, it worked fine pre-v9, although at that time I was only running a "girly man" 30mp system. Hit the boss up, get yourselves a real test system, and fix the product so I can buy it again, please. I miss it SOOO much!!!
Thanks,
Erik
p.s. I'm running a 128GB system. The issue is not lack of system resources. The problem appears to be that SnagIt was never designed/tested on very large desktops and there must be an integer overflow or some other issue causing it to choke when you run it on a serious multi-monitor system.
Posted 2 months ago
You're asking the wrong question. Why, for heaven's sake, would anyone in 2019 still be stuck in the mindset of small-desktop computers when monitors and multi-monitor video cards are so much more economical than they used to be? The answer is simple: Because human beings suck at recognizing opportunity, and easily get stuck in their ways. Most people are stuck in the mindset that they should only be able to see a few programs at once, and they fail to recognize how much more functional computers are when set up with a proper desktop.
To answer your question, I have 3 65" monitors, 4 55" monitors, and the other 9 are "antique" 30" and 32" 4K monitors I bought before the big ones became affordable.
Eventually we'll use AR for everything and won't need any monitors, but AR technology still has a long way to go. Until then, we still need a lot of monitors to set up a proper computer. I pity those who are so narrow-minded as to think they would have no use for something they've never tried, but people in general have never made much sense to me... ;)
To answer your question, I have 3 65" monitors, 4 55" monitors, and the other 9 are "antique" 30" and 32" 4K monitors I bought before the big ones became affordable.
Eventually we'll use AR for everything and won't need any monitors, but AR technology still has a long way to go. Until then, we still need a lot of monitors to set up a proper computer. I pity those who are so narrow-minded as to think they would have no use for something they've never tried, but people in general have never made much sense to me... ;)
(Edited)
I had imagined a "thing of beauty" until you listed 3 or 4 sizes. How many video cards? How are they connected?
I agree that the little monitors are rather pedestrian. But this stuff isn't THAT cheap yet, so I recycled my itsy-bitsy-teeny-weenie 32" monitors for the periperal edges. The big monitors are in my primary field of view and are a dream.
2 NVS810's runs the whole bunch, all connected via DisplayPort.
Quite a lot of software doensn't know what to do with a big desktop - it's definitely not just SnagIt.
2 NVS810's runs the whole bunch, all connected via DisplayPort.
Quite a lot of software doensn't know what to do with a big desktop - it's definitely not just SnagIt.
@4K are you limited to having the same display on 8 monitors per card?
Not sure what you're asking. All 16 monitors are independent. The NVS810 can drive 8 4K monitors at 30hz. If you want 60hz you have to run fewer monitors per card, but at 30hz it works fine with all 16 monitors (8 per card) running at 4K resolution.
Jack Fruh, Champion
Picture please.
Yes. Picture please.
Yeah, that sounds like quite a beast of a setup. I'm not sure why anyone would want to capture a consolidated screen shot of all 16 at the same time. Sure seems there would be a ton of scrolling just to try and figure out what the heck is going on if a simple screen shot were made.
This thread is the first I've ever heard of anyone that has maybe three monitors connected.
This thread is the first I've ever heard of anyone that has maybe three monitors connected.
Nobody is trying to capture a consolidated capture of anything. SnagIt falls over and dies when you try to run it AT ALL on a large-desktop system.
Jack Fruh, Champion
Yes that's how I understood it.
Still the setup sounds legendary and I'd love to see a picture.
There's a guy at work with I think 6 monitors, it's be great to show him something he can aspire to.
Still the setup sounds legendary and I'd love to see a picture.
There's a guy at work with I think 6 monitors, it's be great to show him something he can aspire to.
I think that Ed is asking is if all monitors are at or have to be set to the same resolution. For example, 4K resolution is 3840 X 1920. Do all the monitors support this?
But since SnagIt is designed to capture, it likely sees that vast area as a possibility, faints and falls over. ;)
Rick, I'm guessing that he is capturing his desktop, which encompasses all 16 monitors.
There's nothing 'legendary' about the set-up. It's a trading system, and it's extremely common for traders to have large multi-monitor setups. 16 is definitely a little unusual, but 8+ is not uncommon in the trading world.
The ironic part is that old versions of SnagIt (pre-v9) had no trouble with the entire desktop. Admittedly I only had a "small" 30mp system with only 11 2K monitors back then to test with, but it worked fine until a new version broke it.
I'd still like to see a picture of the arrangement.
Self-correction: 4K is 3840 X 2160.
Heres a 16 monitor set up.
Rather than a picture, can we see how Windows sees them? Rt Click DT, Click Display settings.
Each monitor is 1920 x 1200 and side by side so windows creates a 5760 x 1200 desktop, no holes.
If monitor two were 1920 x 1080, the virtual desktop would still be 5760 x 1200, but there would be a hole, bottom middle (1920 x 120). So it's hard to imagine your virtual screen without many, many areas of undefined space.
Then near the bottom, click "advanced display settings", all three are identical & I never have a problem.
I can program in a fixed 5760 x 1200 pixel space, can stretch excel and create 5600 x 1120 charts, etc. No wholes. BTW, Tech Smith can't fix "holes".
Each monitor is 1920 x 1200 and side by side so windows creates a 5760 x 1200 desktop, no holes.
If monitor two were 1920 x 1080, the virtual desktop would still be 5760 x 1200, but there would be a hole, bottom middle (1920 x 120). So it's hard to imagine your virtual screen without many, many areas of undefined space.
Then near the bottom, click "advanced display settings", all three are identical & I never have a problem.
I can program in a fixed 5760 x 1200 pixel space, can stretch excel and create 5600 x 1120 charts, etc. No wholes. BTW, Tech Smith can't fix "holes".
(Edited)
I've experienced this problem with SnagIt not working with large-desktop systems over a period of several years, on several different configurations of monitors. This experience has shown me that the problem surfaces when there are more than 8 monitors or so, and I have not noticed any pattern where the orientation or relative position of the monitors makes any difference.
That said, here's the current configuration. Note that several monitors have been configured in reduced resolution - this has nothing to do with the SnagIt problem, and the symptoms would be identical if all of them were operating in 4K resolution. I know this from actual testing.
That said, here's the current configuration. Note that several monitors have been configured in reduced resolution - this has nothing to do with the SnagIt problem, and the symptoms would be identical if all of them were operating in 4K resolution. I know this from actual testing.
Are 4,5, and 6 rotated, i.e 2160w x 3840h? If all are 4K size doesn't matter. As is, you have lots of holes, configure them 8-across and 2 high or 4 x 4 and see if you troubles don't disappear. If depiction is correct, you virtually space is: 25,680w x 6,480h, at 32 bit - color depth, that's 665,625,600 bytes of memory required. Windows is limited to 553,648,128 individual addressable bytes., not clusters, but bytes.
and large hole bottom center. Here's a Snagit test:
snag top/left of 12 to bot/right of 13. Or top/left 5 to bot/right 6. (no holes). What happens?
and large hole bottom center. Here's a Snagit test:
snag top/left of 12 to bot/right of 13. Or top/left 5 to bot/right 6. (no holes). What happens?
My prior post address all points made here. To recap, the problem with SnagIt not working on large desktop systems occurs in lots of different configurations and is not unique to this one. I've already explained that SnagIt fails completely and cannot be used at all on such systems, so the suggestion to try snagging something is obviously not relevant.
Erik, I don't have your system, so I cannot test it. But you can:
Connect 12, 3, 16, 15, 13, 7, 8, & 14 into a 4 x 2 configuration. Does it work?
If your unwilling to test it, I don't think any of us can be any further assistance.
Connect 12, 3, 16, 15, 13, 7, 8, & 14 into a 4 x 2 configuration. Does it work?
If your unwilling to test it, I don't think any of us can be any further assistance.
The purpose of my post was to try and get TechSmith Engineering (not the user community) to take notice of the fact that their product is broken, and has been for years. I'm not looking for assistance from other users. My goal in posting was simply to overcome that rather ridiculous fact that by their own description, Support doesn't inform the developers about issues like this. They told me in e-mail today that I should post here if I wanted to get the developers' attention.
I have the impression you and the others who are responding here are users, and are NOT Techsmith product engineers. If that is correct, I appreciate your well-meaning desire to help, but you can't help me. The only people who can help are the Techsmith engineers who probably don't even realize their product has been broken for several years now, because they don't have a serious multi-monitor system to test it on.
If you ARE a Techsmith engineer, please say so. I've already explained more than once why the tests you are suggesting are completely unnecessary, but if you are from TechSmith engineering I suppose I'll go through the motions to appease you if it will persuade you to look into fixing SnagIt.
Thanks,
Erik
I have the impression you and the others who are responding here are users, and are NOT Techsmith product engineers. If that is correct, I appreciate your well-meaning desire to help, but you can't help me. The only people who can help are the Techsmith engineers who probably don't even realize their product has been broken for several years now, because they don't have a serious multi-monitor system to test it on.
If you ARE a Techsmith engineer, please say so. I've already explained more than once why the tests you are suggesting are completely unnecessary, but if you are from TechSmith engineering I suppose I'll go through the motions to appease you if it will persuade you to look into fixing SnagIt.
Thanks,
Erik
Erik, It's broken? What's broken. Do you really think it's up to Tech smith to test every conceivable poor video card you own and 1, 8, 64 or 528 monitors??? Where does that end?
I for one don't want to pay for any of your hardware abuses, OK?
I for one don't want to pay for any of your hardware abuses, OK?
Jack Fruh, Champion
Seeing the width of this makes me wonder it they are using a 16 bit signed integer internally and you've got more than 32,768 pixels across.
I also wonder if monitor 1 on the right poses a problem as they'd need negative numbers going back that far.
Just for kicks you could try dragging monitor 1 to about the middle of the grouping and see if Snagit still crashes? You might also try to create a grouping that's more square so the total number of pixels across is under 32,768 (for testing purposes of course)
I also wonder if monitor 1 on the right poses a problem as they'd need negative numbers going back that far.
Just for kicks you could try dragging monitor 1 to about the middle of the grouping and see if Snagit still crashes? You might also try to create a grouping that's more square so the total number of pixels across is under 32,768 (for testing purposes of course)
If integer, the addressable space is unsigned 0-65,535 in X (L 2 R) and Y (T to B). Pascal and C are both capable of creating virtual spaces that big, then use the mouse or KB to pan around. Then add 32-bit color and one picture requires 16 GB !
It happens to me also, one 4K + two HD monitors and it just doesn't work. First time using snagit, go to an older version doesn't sound good to me.
Version 9 doesn't support 4K. I'd call that a Non-option.
