Does Twitch allow 120 FPS 1080p? I don't know what a capture card would be doing allowing 120 fps 1080p, I thought most sites if not all limit you to 60 fps?

lynx29Does Twitch allow 120 FPS 1080p? I don't know what a capture card would be doing allowing 120 fps 1080p, I thought most sites if not all limit you to 60 fps?

They limit bitrate not fps, the setting will show 1080p/60 but if you look at the details it will show true framerate.

I find 900p/90hz looks better than 1080p/60hz
Most people watch with chat open, so you don't need to stream at full res.

lynx29Does Twitch allow 120 FPS 1080p? I don't know what a capture card would be doing allowing 120 fps 1080p, I thought most sites if not all limit you to 60 fps?

I'm not sure most people can watch 120fps@1080p due to their internet connectivity.

lynx29Does Twitch allow 120 FPS 1080p? I don't know what a capture card would be doing allowing 120 fps 1080p, I thought most sites if not all limit you to 60 fps?

see it more like filming with a RED camera, you get crap quality on the other end because it requires post work but gives you the full information to work with.
even if youcannot stream 120fps, there might be value in having it recorded at that rate or even scaled down from to 60 for streaming.

other then that, I wonder who is the OEM for this.

ZoneDymosee it more like filming with a RED camera, you get crap quality on the other end because it requires post work but gives you the full information to work with.
even if youcannot stream 120fps, there might be value in having it recorded at that rate or even scaled down from to 60 for streaming.

other then that, I wonder who is the OEM for this.

that makes sense yeah.

KetadineI'm not sure most people can watch 120fps@1080p due to their internet connectivity.

More likely screen than internet. Bitrate for game streaming for non partners is 6mbps.

lynx29Does Twitch allow 120 FPS 1080p?

Yes and no. The answer is complicated. 120FPS can be streamed, but it's not "technicall" supported(lack of integration) and will look like crap given a 6Mbps bitrate cap.
But quite soon they'll implement full AV1 support, which will allow 1440p 120FPS to be streamed with a tiny bandwidth increase (~8Mbps).
Right now only h.264 is supported AFAIK.

KetadineI'm not sure most people can watch 120fps@1080p due to their internet connectivity.

1080p@120FPS has identical bandwidth requirements to 4K@30FPS, which has been a thing for awhile now. 30Mbps is attainable for most of the semi-developed world, otherwise 4K TVs would still be a novelty.

The problem is that that it probably is nv12. It is capable capturing RGB only at 1080p30. The core of the device is probably same as on ali capture cards/USB boxes, they support HDR passthrough as a added bonus for console streaming.

silentbogoYes and no. The answer is complicated. 120FPS can be streamed, but it's not "technicall" supported(lack of integration) and will look like crap given a 6Mbps bitrate cap.
But quite soon they'll implement full AV1 support, which will allow 1440p 120FPS to be streamed with a tiny bandwidth increase (~8Mbps).
Right now only h.264 is supported AFAIK.

1080p@120FPS has identical bandwidth requirements to 4K@30FPS, which has been a thing for awhile now. 30Mbps is attainable for most of the semi-developed world, otherwise 4K TVs would still be a novelty.

Not in America, rural areas of America are seriously undeserved, but given how telecoms are basically allowed to have local monopolies, I'm not surprised. My cousin, for example, nlive in a small, rural town in New Hampshire and the only option is DSL at.... 1.5Mbps, that's right, 1500 Kbps, the only other option is Hughesnet satellite, but they have very low data caps. I live maybe an hour away in a more developed area and get 1.2Gbps (1200Mbps) for $50/month...i was getting 800Mbps for $30/month, but would always test out at 950Mbps, so that was a good deal, but since I have a 10GBase-T home network, I figured I might has well go with the 1200Mbps.

silentbogo1080p@120FPS has identical bandwidth requirements to 4K@30FPS

This true for uncompressed video, with compression things are a little bit more complicated.

Usually the efficiency of the codec will rise with higher resolutions (meaning it can store more information with the same bandwidth). That is because many pixels in the higher resolution image will be identical or similar compared to the lower resolution image, so the codec is possible to encode that additional information with a relatively low bandwidth increase.

The same is true for increasing the framerate. Since video codecs only store the differences between each frame, the bandwidth increase when going from 60 to 120 Hz will be very low in most cases, since the new intermediate images will have almost no new content. Lets say you have images 1 and 2 on 60 Hz. Between image 1 and 2 there is just a little change in content. Now you add an intermediate image 1.5 because you increased the framerate to 120 Hz. This intermediate image will have even less content change and can probably be stored just by referencing to content that is already stored in image 1 and 2, so it requires almost no additional bandwidth.

What I want to say with this: The required bandwidth/bitrate is highly content and codec specific. For an example encoding 4Kp60 content using H.265 will usually need 2x to 3x the bandwidth compared to 1080p60 content to achieve a similar quality per pixel, while the amount of information being stored is actually 4 times higher.

AnarchoPrimitivNot in America, rural areas of America are seriously undeserved, but given how telecoms are basically allowed to have local monopolies, I'm not surprised.

I know the situation. I spent some time stateside, and ISP/cell services are awful, overpriced and have lots of shady aspects to each. But that's the problem of citizens not pressing the issue. Heck, in my super-unstable and underdeveloped motherland govt is already talking about municipal internet and making it a

OfficerTuxThis true for uncompressed video, with compression things are a little bit more complicated.

As I said earlier, twitch only does H264, which is getting very old. Not sure why they've skipped H265, but AV1 support is on the way.
No one in their sane mind will stream uncompressed or even lossless video.

I looked at this thought it was a good idea to connect my camera up as a webcam then saw the price..... Turns out I can try something similar for $6

ThaiTaffyTurns out I can try something similar for $6

Those are generic USB2.0 capture dongles. The most you could get out of it is 1080p30 with bad compression artifacts (assuming it works at all). There is no way around it - even cheap chinese capture cards that can do 1080p60 in shitty quality will cost you no less than $50 due to complexity and component price alone. A more or less functional no-name device - min $100.
For $6 you get what you pay for.

silentbogoThose are generic USB2.0 capture dongles. The most you could get out of it is 1080p30 with bad compression artifacts (assuming it works at all). There is no way around it - even cheap chinese capture cards that can do 1080p60 in shitty quality will cost you no less than $50 due to complexity and component price alone. A more or less functional no-name device - min $100.
For $6 you get what you pay for.

Actually the generic capture dongles are $1 this is far superior :roll:

Regardless of how a bit overpriced the razer capture card is, it's still amazing how cheaply you can get a capture card nowadays

trsttteRegardless of how a bit overpriced the razer capture card is, it's still amazing how cheaply you can get a capture card nowadays

yet I am of the opinion that it ever was an still is so expensive....all you are doing is recording....its hte other devices that actually produce the content, all this does is record it...actually not evne that, it just converts output so it can be recorded...and we have to pay 130 bucks for that?

ZoneDymoyet I am of the opinion that it ever was an still is so expensive....all you are doing is recording....its hte other devices that actually produce the content, all this does is record it...actually not evne that, it just converts output so it can be recorded...and we have to pay 130 bucks for that?

That sounds very simple but capturing 6Gbit/s and making sense of each bit is anything but simple, there was a time not that long ago (like 5 years ago) where the best you could get was around 200$ and there were barelly any players in the market (magewell and blackmagic are the cheapest I can remember, other players like Matrox among others also existed but prices start to go up very fast when looking at pro equipment like that)

ZoneDymoyet I am of the opinion that it ever was an still is so expensive....all you are doing is recording....its hte other devices that actually produce the content, all this does is record it...actually not evne that, it just converts output so it can be recorded...and we have to pay 130 bucks for that?

1) It's not just "converting" the signal. It's decoding the signal and then re-encoding it again. All in near real-time. That's why your typical 1080p capture card has so many ICs in it (decoder, bunch of buffers/tranceivers, USB bridge, dedicated MCU for low-speed stuff like EDID spoofing and comms, plus the usual RAM/ROM/power etc). Just the BOM alone can make up over 50% of the price of such device.
It's not just as simple as take a byte from here and put it there. Lots of processing is involved
2) USB 3.0 isn't cheap(still), especially when it comes to UVC (we'll leave mass storage for another day, another topic). You may see some no-name cards that claim USB3.0 and miraculous specs, but it's just a "fancy" connector with good-ole 2.0 wiring.