But there is the possibility to set the RECORDER to 60fps or any other frame rate you would like. You could then import this recording to another video editing tool that supports that particular frame rate. So the first thing I would like to see is one or two additional default frame rates both in the recorder and the editor.
While 60fps support is not yet implemented, any frame rate below 30 is. So although I can set this manually, it would be nice to have 25fps as a default option. After all, much of Europe and Asia use the 25fps PAL system. This becomes especially useful if I add footages from a (professional) PAL-system camera. By default, Camtasia uses 30fps which I suppose matches the 29.97fps NTSC-system. Adding 25fps clips to a project will impact those clips as they are automatically converted to 30fps. Other video editors often come with a warning message that the frame rates do not match.
So the idea I would like to offer here is that 25fps will be a default option (possibly along with 50 and 60fps in a future release) and that you can specifically set a default frame rate for a project. A warning message will then be of great help when an imported clip does not match the project's frame rate.
producer & editor at Ditrianum
Camtasia Studio provides me with a perfect editing environment, which I have to abandon in order to use an editor that can export in 60 FPS. In a way, the lack of 60 FPS is drawing the customers away. TechSmith should add the option as fast as possible imo.
As for the rest, I don't see why not. Setting something as default won't do any harm, and will only benefit the user setting it.
The point is, with well made video 60 fps is DRASTICALLY better than 30 fps. For a learning video about some lecture you won't notice a difference, but for gaming it's immediately obvious. To put it simply, 30 fps is very choppy to my eyes. I can look at my own video's, and without a title or anything and tell you what fps it's at.
So I've seen many requests over the last few years for 60fps. And it seems to me that the vast majority of the folks asking for it is due to "game play". And that has me curious.
Is there really a large audience that enjoys kicking back and just watching someone else play a game?
Note that I'm likely missing something here as I've never been into any kind of computer games, save the old 8 bit "Leisure Suit Larry" back in the 1980's I think.
If we really do have lots of folks that just sit back and watch others play games, it seems we are devolving on a rapid scale. A society so lazy that they can't even be bothered to actually expend the effort to play the game?
I don't get it. Surely there are other reasons I'm missing.
Cheers... Rick :)
The primary reason for watching a video game would be to use them for what they call a walk-through.
I was heavy into gaming back in the PlayStation 2 days. Here’s the deal, video games have levels that you have to beat. In order to beat one level and move on to the next one. You have certain goals that you need to meet and accomplish.
I’ll use a first person shooter game is an example. Every level can have several stages to it. Only after completing every stage in order. Can you complete that level and move on to the next one.
For the sake of this example, let’s say you’ve completed every stage except for the last one. In the last stage you’re traveling through a village. All you have to do is swim across a small river and pass through a gate. Yet, every time you try to enter the water. You get killed by sniper fire or step on landmines. After countless attempts at completing this task you reached your wits end.
That’s when you can turn to YouTube and see how somebody else did it. In the PlayStation 2 days you would read what you needed to do. Now you can watch how it’s done. I used walk-throughs as a last resort. You can invest 15 or 20 minutes in a stage easily. Just to get killed time and time again the same way. At some point, turning to the walk-throughs, makes good sense.
Regards, JoeIf I game these days it's a computer game.I still got my dusty PS2's.The newer games aren't that challenging, just HD. Shame really.
I haven't used walk-throughs on any of my computer games and beat them all.lol
For one game I did experiment with other recording and editing programs and learned pretty quickly that Camtasia has BY FAR, the fastest render time of any of the other programs I tried. it's also simpler with being able to record both game audio and voice audio on separate tracks without having to use a separate program and try to match the timing. Basically, I love the software, but 60 fps will be a requirement going forward for me. It's something that my channel needs to grow and something that will allow me to apply my creativity to new games that I haven't been able to do apply it to before because some games look completely unplayable at 30 fps (Ori and the Blind Forest for example).
All my videos are centered around drawing, rendering, and digital painting tutorials and I have been looking to make the videos more interesting by adding some nicer effects.
That said, I say that 60 fps is a minimum requirement . This will allow me to pan shots outside and possibly slow it down to get a desired effect. In fact I would like to see Camtasia support 240 fps so I can import my iphone videos in slow motion. I just don't want to switch back and forth between video editing software just so I can utilize 60/120/240 fps.
Overall I have enjoyed it but to me...60 fps is minimum especially for the price we pay for Camtasia.
I have been a Camtasia user for almost a year. Just got a new camera (sony) to record in 60fps, and didn't realize this would be an issue in Camtasia. Just want to echo the request for 60 fps. Very disappointed I can't take full advantage of my camera investment, which is a must larger investment than the software.