Quote from Stregone :

Record at full size. When you record at half size it has to do alot more calculations to scale each frame down.

yes, but if you have the resolution its 4 time smaller file, thus 4 times less disk activity, making it do it alot quicker surely?

Quote from alland44 :

Fraps stinks, as a piece of software. Maby because there is no competing programme on the market.

Fraps does exactly what it's supposed to do, there's no other / better way. It's even completely unbloated, which is really rare.

Quote from alland44 :

I have tried using the tv out from one machine, to another. The picture quality is not to good, but framerate is just the same, as in the game.

Because you switch the load of processing/saving the frames to another system.

Quote from Jakg :

but if you have the resolution its 4 time smaller file, thus 4 times less disk activity, making it do it alot quicker surely?

Why not go for the best of both, LFS at half resolution, fraps at 'Full size'.

hmmm, i really must get Frasps working soon...

Quote from Jakg :

yes, but if you have the resolution its 4 time smaller file, thus 4 times less disk activity, making it do it alot quicker surely?

Not neccessarily. If you have a SATA drive you should be able to record full size 1024 atleast with no problems, I've done it(I remember I could record at 30fps atleast, no problem). Before that I was playing around with 1280 at half size recording (640) and it chugged at less than 15 fps. It all depends on what the bottleneck on your system is, and at what fps you are recording at. I've got an Athlon XP 3000+, and was recording to a SATA drive.

Quote from Stregone :

Not neccessarily. If you have a SATA drive you should be able to record full size 1024 atleast with no problems, I've done it(I remember I could record at 30fps atleast, no problem). Before that I was playing around with 1280 at half size recording (640) and it chugged at less than 15 fps. It all depends on what the bottleneck on your system is, and at what fps you are recording at. I've got an Athlon XP 3000+, and was recording to a SATA drive.

true, i was just thinking that... oh alright, with the speeds of modern drives they certainly shouldnt be the bottlenek!

A generator went out, and the building that hosts my web site had it's power shut down, so it may be a while before the videos are back up. In the meantime you should be able to find some sample HC1 videos here:

http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com

first off, i would suggest xvid, as i think its slightly better than divx.
and very important: resolution is not THAT important, its much more about vbr/cbr and the little tiny side-details, with which you can gain max details on min filesize

Ok, site is back up.

1365x768 video (1024x768 with pixel aspect ratio 1.333) of souped up porsche at Road America, taken with Sony HC1 camcorder:

ra1.wmv

Very short 1920x1080 video (1440x1080 with pixel aspect ratio 1.333) of hummingbird at feeder, also taken with Sony HC1 camcorder:

hc1d.wmv