5 ms·

How does it compare to using either of the following on macOS - OBS - The built in screen recording functionality in macOS itself - ffmpeg (see http://trac.f

How does it compare to using either of the following on macOS - OBS - The built in screen recording functionality in macOS itself - ffmpeg (see http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Capture/Desktop http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Capture/Desktop for details on doing screen capture with it)

sedatk 2y ago
Windows also has built-in screen recording.
j45 2y ago
Way simpler and quicker than those options. Being able to reply to an email with a video quicker than typing is often a line I consider.
mcilroy 2y ago
With any of those you need to upload the video directly into Slack, or something like YouTube, Vimeo, etc. Plausible for short videos, but can become a pain if recording for more than a few mins. If you record with Cap, we'll auto handle the segmentation of the video so it can be played back efficiently (so the whole video doesn't have to be download in one go). You can also receive comments on your Cap link, reactions, and see the analytics data. It just makes it easier. Do your recording, then receive your shareable Cap link in just a few seconds.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  > If you record with Cap, we'll auto handle the segmentation of the video so it can be played back efficiently (so the whole video doesn't have to be download in one go). Playing an mp4 from a static file server buffers only the parts it consumes, including support for seeking. HTTP range requests work just fine.
- codetrotter 2y ago
  That makes sense. How about if I already run a PeerTube instance. In that case I already have segmentation of videos so people can watch without downloading the whole file, and they could also comment on the video on my PeerTube instance if I allowed them to. How does Cap compare to using a PeerTube instance to host screen recordings?
  - j45 2y ago
    It is better than peertube because it doesn't require an extra piece of software to be learned and setup and maintained to host and deliver recorded videos. The 98% will not self host.
  - twobitshifter 2y ago
    This is like the classic Dropbox comment. It’s about ease of use and the fewest steps.
    - codetrotter 2y ago
      Yeah, but not quite. I’m not dismissing their product. Just wondering if it would be worth running a Cap server when I already have tools to make screen recordings, and I already have a PeerTube instance where I can host videos. And actually now I am also wondering if Cap could be integrated with PeerTube so you could have which ever things Cap brings to the table aside from video hosting and have it either upload to PeerTube by API, or even having some version of Cap existing as a sort of plugin into PeerTube so that you could use it from within PeerTube
      - thorncorona 2y ago
        If you already have a working workflow, this is probably overcomplicating things. I would imagine the overlap of people who would use peertube and Cap is 0.
      - 2Gkashmiri 2y ago
        Yeah. It can be as simple as "video saved. Do you want to submit to peertube?" And done. Here is a link.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
One of the benefits of Loom is the convenience of video messaging. So it’s less about screen recording in the same way as OBS but more about replacing Slack with something more efficient. I’m not sure Cap is a replacement for Loom in that sense.
- j45 2y ago
  I thought so too until I used the "video messaging" of loom and found it to be a reorganized use of existing loom features instead of first class video messaging. Video messaging can also waste both parties times if the videos are too long compared to the message. Video messaging can be infinitely priceless where a video can explain quicker what words can't. Other platforms have been able to get a bit further, I think there is one made by vimeo or someone used for sales that is quite good at the video messaging itself.
geor9e 2y ago
Loom is software that, in one click, overlays your face in a bubble as you can narrate your screen recording, uploads it as it's recording, and when you press stop it copies a link to your clipboard you can share immediately with whoever you are showing. It's a very polished and complete experience. OBS is for streamers. It could be set up in a similar way if you already have a twitch channel hooked into it. It won't be as polished and easy. macOS doesn't have any upload or overlay function so it's not comparable. ffmpeg is ffmpeg
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  macOS does have overlay functionality, it’s called presenter mode or something like that. Look for it in the green camera icon that shows up in the menu bar when you’re sharing your screen. It puts your face in a bubble overlayed on top of whatever you’re sharing, as you said. You’re right it doesn’t have upload though.
  - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
    > You’re right it doesn’t have upload though. That's surprising considering how Apple pushes iCloud integration...
    - stephenr 2y ago
      Apple also pushes privacy and on-device processing; But as for the feature itself: why on earth would you want a video uploaded somewhere else before you've even had a chance to watch it back at least once?
      - zztop44 2y ago
        Because you’re showing a colleague how to use a simple inventory tracker that you’ve created in Google Sheets. Or how the new multilingual Figma templates work. Or how to batch rename a folder full of files using the command line. Or whatever, really. You already know what’s in the video because you literally just recorded it. And it doesn’t need to be polished because it’s probably just going to one coworker, who will only view it once.

sedatk 2y ago

Windows also has built-in screen recording.

j45 2y ago

Way simpler and quicker than those options. Being able to reply to an email with a video quicker than typing is often a line I consider.

mcilroy 2y ago

With any of those you need to upload the video directly into Slack, or something like YouTube, Vimeo, etc. Plausible for short videos, but can become a pain if recording for more than a few mins. If you record with Cap, we'll auto handle the segmentation of the video so it can be played back efficiently (so the whole video doesn't have to be download in one go). You can also receive comments on your Cap link, reactions, and see the analytics data. It just makes it easier. Do your recording, then receive your shareable Cap link in just a few seconds.

yencabulator 2y ago
> If you record with Cap, we'll auto handle the segmentation of the video so it can be played back efficiently (so the whole video doesn't have to be download in one go). Playing an mp4 from a static file server buffers only the parts it consumes, including support for seeking. HTTP range requests work just fine.
codetrotter 2y ago
That makes sense. How about if I already run a PeerTube instance. In that case I already have segmentation of videos so people can watch without downloading the whole file, and they could also comment on the video on my PeerTube instance if I allowed them to. How does Cap compare to using a PeerTube instance to host screen recordings?
- j45 2y ago
  It is better than peertube because it doesn't require an extra piece of software to be learned and setup and maintained to host and deliver recorded videos. The 98% will not self host.
- twobitshifter 2y ago
  This is like the classic Dropbox comment. It’s about ease of use and the fewest steps.
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    Yeah, but not quite. I’m not dismissing their product. Just wondering if it would be worth running a Cap server when I already have tools to make screen recordings, and I already have a PeerTube instance where I can host videos. And actually now I am also wondering if Cap could be integrated with PeerTube so you could have which ever things Cap brings to the table aside from video hosting and have it either upload to PeerTube by API, or even having some version of Cap existing as a sort of plugin into PeerTube so that you could use it from within PeerTube
    - thorncorona 2y ago
      If you already have a working workflow, this is probably overcomplicating things. I would imagine the overlap of people who would use peertube and Cap is 0.
    - 2Gkashmiri 2y ago
      Yeah. It can be as simple as "video saved. Do you want to submit to peertube?" And done. Here is a link.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

One of the benefits of Loom is the convenience of video messaging. So it’s less about screen recording in the same way as OBS but more about replacing Slack with something more efficient. I’m not sure Cap is a replacement for Loom in that sense.

j45 2y ago
I thought so too until I used the "video messaging" of loom and found it to be a reorganized use of existing loom features instead of first class video messaging. Video messaging can also waste both parties times if the videos are too long compared to the message. Video messaging can be infinitely priceless where a video can explain quicker what words can't. Other platforms have been able to get a bit further, I think there is one made by vimeo or someone used for sales that is quite good at the video messaging itself.

geor9e 2y ago

Loom is software that, in one click, overlays your face in a bubble as you can narrate your screen recording, uploads it as it's recording, and when you press stop it copies a link to your clipboard you can share immediately with whoever you are showing. It's a very polished and complete experience. OBS is for streamers. It could be set up in a similar way if you already have a twitch channel hooked into it. It won't be as polished and easy. macOS doesn't have any upload or overlay function so it's not comparable. ffmpeg is ffmpeg

nozzlegear 2y ago
macOS does have overlay functionality, it’s called presenter mode or something like that. Look for it in the green camera icon that shows up in the menu bar when you’re sharing your screen. It puts your face in a bubble overlayed on top of whatever you’re sharing, as you said. You’re right it doesn’t have upload though.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  > You’re right it doesn’t have upload though. That's surprising considering how Apple pushes iCloud integration...
  - stephenr 2y ago
    Apple also pushes privacy and on-device processing; But as for the feature itself: why on earth would you want a video uploaded somewhere else before you've even had a chance to watch it back at least once?
    - zztop44 2y ago
      Because you’re showing a colleague how to use a simple inventory tracker that you’ve created in Google Sheets. Or how the new multilingual Figma templates work. Or how to batch rename a folder full of files using the command line. Or whatever, really. You already know what’s in the video because you literally just recorded it. And it doesn’t need to be polished because it’s probably just going to one coworker, who will only view it once.