4k 30/60fps Write Speed Requirements & File Size Estimate?

[WhiteSkyMage]

Hey guys, Having a bit of trouble choosing a storage device for 4K (actually more like 3840x1600) recording. When using my hard drive, the recording lags even with 2560x1080 @ 60FPS.

Will a SATA SSD handle 3840x1600 @ 60FPS when using something like MagicYUV codec? Is it OK using an SSD for gameplay video record or is it better to use a raid of HDDs? I heard this wears out an SSD pretty quickly no?

[Mira Yurizaki]

It depends on the bitrate of the video format you're trying to encode. If you're going for 100Mbps, then you need at the minimum 100 Mbps (which is like 12.5 MB/sec) to record.

 

Regarding SSDs, something high-tier like a Samsung drive needs like petabytes of data written to it before it goes kaput. Even if you were writing a terabyte a day, that's still over a thousand days of service life.

 

EDIT: I would add that recording is more of a processing issue than a storage one. If your recordings are lagging, it may be because whatever's doing the recording isn't powerful enough to do that and game at the same time.

Edited December 7, 2017 by M.Yurizaki

[WhiteSkyMage]

On 12/7/2017 at 8:06 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

It depends on the bitrate of the video format you're trying to encode. If you're going for 100Mbps, then you need at the minimum 100 Mbps (which is like 12.5 MB/sec) to record.

 

Regarding SSDs, something high-tier like a Samsung drive needs like petabytes of data written to it before it goes kaput. Even if you were writing a terabyte a day, that's still over a thousand days of service life.

 

EDIT: I would add that recording is more of a processing issue than a storage one. If your recordings are lagging, it may be because whatever's doing the recording isn't powerful enough to do that and game at the same time.

Don't worry, about the processing, you can see my signature down below, those are my PC specs. I am trying to record 3840x1600 video, but even a 2560x1080 @ 60FPS (lossless) LAGS on a hard drive, but doesn't lag on a SSD. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 hours ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

but even a 2560x1080 @ 60FPS (lossless)

Lossless video?

[AshleyAshes]

25 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Lossless video?

Well, yeah, there's a range of lossless video codecs.  Off the top of my head, and admittidly very old (Relatively speaking), HuffYUV and Lagarith Lossless come to mind.  Granted both are limited to 8bit color.  But both are optimized for low processing time in exchange for IO.  Granted Pentium IIIs and 4's were mainstream when those were developed so I imagine a more 'demanding' but relatively fast successor exists now.

 

I could also go into the things we use in my industry like OpenEXR for image sequences and has multiple compression options.  Most of the video I work with in film are OpenEXR sequences.

 

Edit: In reading, it seems FFV1 is a reasonable successor to Lagarith or Huffy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFV1

[WhiteSkyMage]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

Well, yeah, there's a range of lossless video codecs.  Off the top of my head, and admittidly very old (Relatively speaking), HuffYUV and Lagarith Lossless come to mind.  Granted both are limited to 8bit color.  But both are optimized for low processing time in exchange for IO.  Granted Pentium IIIs and 4's were mainstream when those were developed so I imagine a more 'demanding' but relatively fast successor exists now.

 

I could also go into the things we use in my industry like OpenEXR for image sequences and has multiple compression options.  Most of the video I work with in film are OpenEXR sequences.

 

Edit: In reading, it seems FFV1 is a reasonable successor to Lagarith or Huffy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFV1

magicyuv is the one im using currently. It isn't very demanding on the CPU, in fact Lagarith is more demanding than this one.

[AshleyAshes]

5 minutes ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

magicyuv is the one im using currently. It isn't very demanding on the CPU, in fact Lagarith is more demanding than this one.

So... It's a paid product and it's advertising bling only gives metrics for it's speed compared to some other lossless codecs but not it's compression efficiency...?  I find that a little suspect.

Though there's a lot to factor for capture codecs since both CPU time and I/O are critical factors.  Compression can reduce I/O but highly demanding compression can be too slow to do in real time and such.

[WhiteSkyMage]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

So... It's a paid product and it's advertising bling only gives metrics for it's speed compared to some other lossless codecs but not it's compression efficiency...?  I find that a little suspect.

Though there's a lot to factor for capture codecs since both CPU time and I/O are critical factors.  Compression can reduce I/O but highly demanding compression can be too slow to do in real time and such.

well i've used it and i managed to get a 1gbit/s video 1080p 60FPS for just 1 min was 23GB  idk about efficiency but when i recorded it, the CPU didn't even hear, the only issue was - my HDD was too slow. I had to do it on my SSD.