Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Hello everybody out there doing desktop recordings,

On my old notebook with an Intel Mobile processor with 1.5 GHz and 1 GB RAM, producing a screencast is a pain.

I am using a framerate of 15 fps and a value of 2000M for the rtbufsize option.

There is a nice help page by the ffmpeg developers recommending to do encoding after recording, but this does not seem to make a lot of difference in my case (avi encoder).

This page by the company developing the commonly used screencast software Camtasia is indicating that CPU performance might be the most critical bottleneck for recording performance.

I would like to know which hardware would be best to use, but the statements from the two different websites seem contradictory to me: If I switch off encoding in ffmpeg, CPU performance should no longer be the bottleneck for screen capture.

Thanks in advance for your help!

share|improve this question
What are you recording with? What is your recorded video format? Is this a ffmpeg question at all? What is your OS? If on gnome have you tried the gnome screen recorder? If on windows have you tried camstudio? I refer only to free options here- but of course if you used camtasia you would not have these questions most likely. – Rajib Oct 23 '13 at 16:52

Why don't you try Screencast'O'Matic ? ( It's JAVA Based client to make efficient screencast.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.