Steam: Newest Update = How To Be In "Offline" Mode In The Friends List (Like It Used To Be) Is it Gone? [Notification, Tutorial]

Update 2018.08.01: Steam has recently been Updated to include "Do Not Disturb" and "Offline" settings, which coincides with many of the below concepts [as users have asked for them - wtg Valve!]. More details at the Official Steam News Posting, here.

For those using Steam (the gaming/client/launcher interface by Valve - creators of games like the Half-Life, Team Fortress 2 and DOTA 2), you may have had an update recently that made your Friends List appear without you asking it to - and where you seemed to be immediately ONLINE - a virtual version of waking up in a classroom with no clothes on [not ready for it, as in a bad dream..].

Within minutes, I saw a Discussion Thread in the Steam Forums asking how to "be in offline mode" - which is how it used to be; you could set in the Options/Settings, "Appear In Offline Mode" when starting the Friends portion of the Steam client [I was going to the forum to ask myself, as I have an illness that makes me tired easily, preventing me from chatting with friends as much as I would like - and I don't want to appear cold or ignoring of them, so I usually utilize any 'Offline Mode' options in Friends clients].

I looked around in the Settings and configuration of the new Friends List and quickly figured out how to make the Friends portion of the interface 'act' like it used to - that is, how to 'appear offline' to friends in the list, when running Steam [and not get gameplay interrupted with any notifications, that is found further below]. Here is all you have to do:

» Set to INVISIBLE (pull-down menu "v" next to name)

[Stays through Steam restart, when restarting your PC/Steam, it will start up in Invisible Mode]

[Tutorial GIF] Showing where and how to use the pull-down menu option in the new Friends List
in Steam to appear 'offline' (termed "Invisible" in the new Friends List version)

That's it!

Now you can still enjoy your games and 'not be forced to interact' with your Friends on your List [no matter what your personal reason(s) may be..]. HTH



Addendum I:
I wanted to add that although the terminology has changed, the functionality remains the same; that is, you can still 'hide' yourself from everyone and not see any messages or notifications, until you specifically want to, opening the Friends portion of the Steam Client, and looking at your Messages. Here, for example, is the Notification Settings to apply, if you do NOT want to be notified when Friends come Online or send you Messages - combined with the above "Invisible" setting, it will function exactly as before - you will be 'greyed out' on their end(s) and it will just show when you were "Last Online", and if they send you Messages, they will be kept on your end but nothing will pop-up/sound to let you know that the Message arrived:

Example of the settings for the Notifications, where with the settings above, you will not have anything interrupting you as you play (no sounds, no pop-ups, nothing). Together with setting yourself as "Invisible", it is functionally the same as "Offline Mode" before, in the older Steam Client. Access the Friends List Settings by clicking on the Gear icon in the main Friends List window (Click to see Full Size)

Addendum II:
Doing some further testing, I wanted to add that the Website/Browser functionality operates in the same manner as the stand-alone Steam client. That is, you can set yourself to "Invisible" and it will act as "Offline" did in the past (you will be 'greyed out' on your Friends' Lists). You have the same Notification options as the above example image as well (minus the Steam-Client-specific 'window flashing' buttons) - the interface even looks the same (colour and button/link locations), which is always good for user-friendliness...

Note: You will be set to "Online" the very first time that you open the Web/Browser version of the Friends List (eg. clicking on the Envelope>XunreadChatMessage at a Steam webpage) - but once you set yourself to "Invisible" in the Browser portion/window, it remains that way if you close the Friends window and open it up again. I even tested closing the browser (Chrome) entirely, waiting a while, then opening up a Steam website, then the browser-based Friends List - although I remained 'logged in', I was still 'Invisible' in the Friends List window/page when I restarted Chrome.





I want to say a quick Thank You to Steam/Valve for allowing those that don't wish to be Visible all the time [and/or those that have illnesses that prevent them from using this portion of the client well/properly/astheydesireto], to still remain "offline" to Friends - not all companies would maintain this level of user option/satisfaction.
I realize it is more difficult these days, as studies have shown that if customers/players can have multiple facets of interaction (text, chat, voice, etc) it 'solidifies' them as players/customers, maintaining them longer [than if there were not these channels of interaction]. This correlation is so pervasive, that Live Voice Chat seems to be 'making a comeback' from the abandoned, garbage-filled-alleyways of the 1990's, with Stand-Alone clients and chat-only options popping up recently [as of the time of this post].
Anyway, Thank You, Valve. Thank you for continuing to allow these options to your users/players.
~T

Quality Test: Bandicam's Xvid Implementation And Examination Of The Optimization Configuration [with Screenshot Comparisons]

For those that use Bandicam to record their gameplay, you may already be familiar with and even use one of the built-in Presets that Bandicam offers, all of which configure many of the recording settings automatically for you. Some of these Presets are directed towards 'immediate post-record upload' of gameplay recordings. One of these, is the "YouTube (720p)" Preset.

In this Quality Test, I will be focusing in specifically on the "Optimization" setting within the Options of this Preset and examining the difference you can expect between the two options that you can choose from. The two options for the Optimization setting under the Xvid Settings dialog are: "Faster Encoding Speed" (the Default) and "Smaller File Size" - the area where you choose between these two is highlighted in the Header of this article, above.

Recently, on the Official Bandicam Forums here, I was trying to help out a fellow Bandicam user, with information about Quality and it's relation to File Sizes, and I ended up speaking briefly about this "Optimization" setting, offered in Bandicam. I felt as though I wanted to expand a bit more on this setting in Bandicam and the effect of each option - both for the benefit of this user and to help others as well - and so here is the 'expanding'... ness...

"Xvid" is a codec (used to COmpress and DECompress video), that is part of the MPEG-4 family. For those familiar with video compression and H.264/AVC (which is MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding), Xvid is H.263/ASP (MPEG-4 Part 2, Advanced Simple Profile). This means it is related to h.264/AVC; however, being h.263/ASP, Xvid does not have some of the 'top-shelf' capabilities of h.264/AVC. It does however, have many capabilities (such as B-Frames and Quarter-Pixel analysis) which still give it high-quality output potential.

For more of an in-depth look into Bandicam's implementation of Xvid and other Settings it offers, their effects on Quality and related File Sizes (and More!), I have written an article earlier (by popular request) talking about "some of the Xvid settings I use, and why", here.

In the game recording application Bandicam, the many options that Xvid offers have been given a simplified interface for the user, where they can very easily choose between a 'Faster Speed' version (the Default) and a 'Smaller Size' version. This is to expected from the concept of the Presets, but it is also simplified in the Xvid configuration options in general [in Bandisoft's implementation of Xvid in the program]. This should not be seen entirely as a negative, as there are many, many options for Xvid (an MPEG-4 codec, with literally dozens of settings) and it would be potentially confusing for many users to attempt to choose between the various settings [and know what their effects on recording and output would be], thus the simplified interface.

So then, what is the 'real difference' between the two "Optimization" settings? Let's take a look...

Night Scene frame comparison for the two settings, in the Unigine Valley Benchmark. Click to see Full Size

Above, is a side-by-side comparison of two frame extractions from two recordings, utilizing the two different Xvid Optimization options in Bandicam. The one on the left was from a video recorded using the Default setting of "Faster Encoding Speed", where the one on the right was from a video recorded using the option changed to the "Smaller File Size" setting.

It can be seen, mainly in the flatter, darker-blue area between the moon and the trees to the left of it, that the 'Faster Speed' side appears to have a 'blocky' effect occurring, even though it is a subtle occurrence. It does not seem to be happening on the right, in the 'Smaller Size' setting frame. The right side has a smoother change in the variations of colours, with less of the 'blocks' - which are compression artifacts (that is, visual effects seen in the video material due to the difference in how the codec is calculating the gradations ['noticing and calculating the series of changes'] in the colours).

This 'blocky' effect is likely occurring because many of the analysis and processing options in the codec may be turned OFF in the 'Faster' setting of [Bandicam's usage of] Xvid. This is a normal approach however, as turning these types of options off, essentially tells the codec "don't pay as much attention to detail" - resulting in the codec processing and outputting data (in the form of frames) much faster - hence the "Faster Encoding Speed" title of the option. It simply is not attempting to 'look at all the subtle differences in colour' and 'keep them all'.

As far as Output File Size for each Optimization setting, when recording the Valley Benchmark with the "Faster Encoding Speed" option of Bandicam's "YouTube (720p)" Preset, it was streaming data at about 24Mbps to the video file (writing about 3MB/s [to a hard drive capable of 150MB/s]).  When recording using the "Smaller File Size" option, data was being recorded at half that rate, about 12Mbps (writing less than 1.5MB/s to the video file). This is most likely due to the extra analysis that the codec is performing, being able to [with the 'Smaller Size' setting] scrutinize further and compress the video more, reducing the final recorded file size output.

 Let's look at other examples to see more differences between the two settings.

Close-up anatomical frame comparison for the two settings, in the Street Fighter IV Benchmark. Click to see Full Size

Above, is a comparison of two frame extractions from two recordings of the Street Fighter IV Benchmark. The left (using the 'Faster Encoding Speed' option), has not only the Macroblocking effect from our earlier example (at less severity, seen more along in the right edge of the frames); but it also shows a blotchy, speckled effect within the subtle changes of colour (seen everywhere, but it is more obvious around the deltoid and pectoral muscles of the game character [Ryu's shoulder and chest muscles]) . This is a form of Gibbs Effects, sometimes called "mosquito noise" in video processing.

This type of effect is likely to occur for the same reasons as the above comparison, where in the "Faster Encoding" setting, many of the analysis and processing options are turned OFF, resulting in higher Performance, in the end. The codec is simply not attempting to maintain the same amount of detail (the minor changes in colour) within and between the frames - again however, having the result of higher performance [versus the "Smaller Size" option].

The recordings themselves, of the Street Fighter IV Benchmark, had similar Bitrates to the above example. With the "Faster Encoding Speed" option, about 30Mbps were being saved to the video file (written at about 3.5MB/s to the drive). When using the "Smaller File Size" setting, about 20Mbps of data was being streamed out (written at about 2MB/s to the video file output). This again, is an example of the extra analysis, capable in the 'Smaller Size' option, where the codec is going to sacrifice some performance, to do what it can, to analyze the differences in the video and maintain them to a higher degree in the final video output (keeping more detail - at the cost of a performance 'hit' in recording and disk space used overall for the final output file).

Still frame comparison for the two optimization settings, taken from the Batman: Arkham City Benchmark.
Click to see Full Size

In the above pair of screenshots (extractions from two Batman: Arkham City Benchmark video recordings), evidence of both of the previous example types of compression effects can be seen. In both frame extractions, Gibbs Effects ('ringing' or 'mosquito noise') can be seen around the furniture in the bottom/front (center). The left frame also contains the Macroblocking effect, especially in the 'flatter' [area with less detail] center region (it is also present in the right frame, but it does so in a far less obvious manner).

Both of these effects occur to some degree in the right example as well, but Macroblocks occur to a far lesser degree in the central region, as the codec [with the "Smaller File Size" option] is sacrificing Speed for the sake of taking more time to analyze each frame further, taking into account the changes in colour between the frames ('Temporal') and throughout the frames themselves ('Spatial'), attempting to maintain more of the colour it is detecting.

Looking at the Bitrates used for the recordings, with the "Faster Encoding" option, it was saving data at about 16Mbps (writing about 2MB/s to the video file), where the "Smaller Size" option was recording half that, about 8Mbps (saving 1MB/s to the recording); once again showing the difference the analysis and attempt to compress the frames further, saves on diskspace. The Performance Hit for this game was little however, in difference, as the Average Frames Per Second (reported after a Full Run of the Benchmark) was the same for both: 93fps.
4

I wanted to do an example of a game that has far lower 'action' happening on the screen (a lower amount of changes happening at once), so I chose this Web Browser-based game, called Lottso Express (found at Pogo.com). As can be seen above, there is little apparent difference between the two frames extracted from the two recordings, each with the different optimization setting being used.

This is likely due to the fact that there is so little changing on the screen at one time in this game [source material], that the codec is able to efficiently handle all changes occurring, losing little to the lower analysis being done when using the "Faster" option. Indeed, the difference in Bitrate between the two recordings was less than 100kbps - the Faster Encoding recording had a Bitrate of 540kbps (writing about 67KB/s to the file) and the 'Smaller File' video had a Bitrate of about 440kbps (writing about 55KB/s to the file).

Getting back to higher-action games (ones with more changes going on in the screen/frames), the above two frames are extracted from two game recordings of Battlefield: Hardline, each with the different Optimization option selected. Taken from videos where the player [me!] was standing almost still, there was little going on in game, but the frames have Macroblocking occurring in the flatter/less-detailed region on the left [of each], most likely due to the 80% Quality setting of the YouTube720p Preset - compressing the non-moving area as much as possible. Gibbs Effects ("ringing" or "mosquito noise") is apparent in the upper-right area for the "Faster Encoding Speed" side, far less visible in the same region (around the edges of the leaves) on the "Smaller File Size" side.

The Bitrate for both videos shown above was similar as well, with the 'Faster Encoding' recording running at only about 10Mbps (saving about 1MB/s to the video file), as again, the player was not moving very much at all [in this example]. The 'Smaller Size' recording saved only slightly less data, at 7Mbps (writing less than 1MB/s to the file) - not a large difference, since there weren't many changes going on with the material in the frames (due to not moving very much). This is a good example of showing how both settings, although both set with differing limitations, 'try to do as much as they can', when it comes to compressing/saving the video data to the output file.

Still frame comparison for the two optimization settings, taken from two recordings of Planetside 2. I was shooting my rifle just off to the right, creating an area to analyze between the rifle and the Console. The open areas around the Console are also open to examination. Click to see Full Size

Another high-action game, these frames above are from the game Planetside 2, with my soldier shooting a rifle just off-screen to the right. This increases the motion going on in the frames, and thus increases the differences between the two Optimization settings and how they will handle the onscreen motion vectors (seen more in the area between the just-off-screen rifle to the right and the console in the center). Between the two, especially on the left example, Macroblocking is seen in that region, as well as the floor.

Although a handful of examples can bring out the difference between these two settings, try to remember that these are all zoomed, scrutinized examples - still frames, as well, where compression artifacts are much easier to spot - so here is a different type of example, following:

Above, is an example of the two codec settings in motion (created as a GIF by Bandisoft's Honeycam [which came out of Beta just weeks ago - Tutorial for the program Coming Soon™]). Even though I applied a Sharpness Filter within the program, to accentuate the difference between the two, it can be seen that Macroblocking occurs in both (likely due to the 80% Quality portion of the Preset) - although it appears much stronger in the left half. Below is the same example, but with no Sharpness Filter applied.

As seen above, although the compression artifacts are present if looked for, it is somewhat of a subtle presence in a moving, action-packed recording, during playback. Indeed, many people will not even notice the visual differences between the two settings, being more interested in the action occurring on screen! These artifacts are also further 'hidden', if a recording is going to be further processed - such as after uploading to a video sharing site.

Many of these types of sites (YouTube, Vimeo, Plays.Tv, etc) will re-compress the video into a more streaming-friendly Bitrate, sometimes into multiple bitrates, then available to choose from, by the viewer, when browsing them. This decreases Quality (in the name of smoother streaming, with less dropped frames or 'falling behind'), further hiding imperfections like the compression artifacts above - unless of course they are far too obvious in the source recording, where then, they will still be present (although blurred or softened) in the final video playback/viewing. I created an example of the effect from this re-compression, done by video sharing sites - it is shown just below (YouTube is used merely as an example):

Originally created for an earlier article, testing out MJPEG on Diablo3 with Bandicam, this screenshot shows examples of the detail loss after uploading to YouTube, when the video is streamed back at 1080p and 720p (the frames are extractions of the downloaded post-recompression versions of the original upload).
Click to see Full Size

As always, dear reader, I urge you to try your own tests, with your favourite (or latest played) games, to see which setting you prefer. Sometimes, you may be limited in your choices. For example, if you have an older PC system, or are using a Laptop, you may only be able to record with the 'Faster Encoding' option, unable to utilize the further analysis and processing done by the 'Smaller File' setting at this time - it may just create too much 'lag' or 'choppy-ness' while recording for your system. Or, you may have disk space as a limitation, then only being able to use the 'Smaller Size' option, where the further analysis and compression is the only way you can collect enough gameplay recordings for your project.

Either way, don't be too discouraged, remembering from the last [animated] example above - and the YouTube example - that it is a subtle difference overall, one that I have accentuated here [merely for educational purposes, for those that wished to know what the 'real' difference in output would be]. When not 'zooming in' or otherwise scrutinizing the videos closely - normally enjoying them and all their action-packed-ness - one may not even notice a difference at all, even after seeing the above examples! In that case then, I urge you to use whichever is more beneficial for your circumstances - and try to have fun using either setting of this 'Bandicam-optimized-version-of-Xvid' as your recording codec, to record your gameplay experiences.

See You In The Game!

And More: AMD Gaming Evolved App (Raptr) Slider Not Staying On Quality Setting, Reverting To Balanced [Explained]

Yesterday, I posted on the Raptr Support Forums, talking about an issue where I saw that the configurator [I think that's a word, I'm going to use it anyway, in regards to "the main slider that sets the quality setting in the Client"]  would not stay on "Quality", if set for games in the AMD Gaming Evolved Client (which I have begun to use slowly over the past few months).

What I saw was, is that if I changed the configurator to "Quality" for a game, then temporarily selected a different game for a while from the Library list, then went back to the previous game, the configurator would not remain on "Quality" for the previous game but would revert back to "Balanced". Here is an example, using Battlefield:Hardline in the Client App, below:

Animation showing how the Gaming Evolved client does not stay on the desired Quality preference/setting, using Battlefield:Hardline as an example. Click to see Full Size

I asked about this occurrence in the Raptr Forums here, and was told by a Rep there that a Ticket would be opened on my behalf [a 'Trouble Ticket' is a Support mechanism for tracking issues (I was Technical Support for a few companies in my past)]. I received an email from Raptr Support quickly and worked back and forth with them over a short period, testing some games out and how the configurator worked with those - finding that for games such as Hitman:Absolution, Tomb Raider (2013) and Max Payne 3, the slider worked just fine, remaining on the desired "Quality" setting - however, for other games, it 'reverted' back to "Balanced" every time.

It was explained to me by Raptr Support, that for the games where 'the slider reverted back to Balanced after setting the slider to Quality' [my phrasing], it was because there were no actual differences in the settings between "Balanced" and "Quality", for those games where that occurred.

The AMD Gaming Evolved client (Raptr) showing that the configurator indeed remains on the desired Quality setting,
for some games, such as Hitman:Absolution, Tomb Raider (2013) and more. Click to see Full Size

Although the slider may be slightly confusing then (they stated they are working on that), this was mostly my own fault, in my mind, since I was fixating on the seemingly-rebellious slider and I wasn't looking at the settings below (where I would have seen that there were no real differences between Balanced and Quality for those games).

So in the end, as far as the slider 'not staying on the "Quality" setting and reverting to "Balanced" all the time', all was eventually figured out (with the helpfulness of Raptr Support); and even if it wasn't entirely "fixed", I wanted to share these experiences and explanations with you all, especially for those that have run into this exact issue.


See You In The Games!

'Setting Of The Month': Bandicam's Xvid Implementation (with Screenshots and Quality Analysis)

As the First Post of a new type of article here at The Game Tips And More Blog

[started due to popular demand!], I would like to explain a bit about my 'Setting Of The Month':

What is meant by "Of The Month" (at least at this blog), is less 'lunar syzygy' and more 'what is currently being served', in concept. Every once in a while I will post what Recording Settings or Rendering Settings I am currently using. I want to begin doing these posts in response to two things:

• It was requested by you readers! Over the first half of the year, I run a Poll here at the Blog (it is located on the top right panel area) and currently, the single most popular Requested Topic For Future Posts is "Tips and Tricks of Video Capturing and Editing". Therefore, as part of answering that call 'by popular demand', by my respected readers, I want to share as a 'Tip' what settings I have been using of late to capture - not to tell you 'what to use', but to simply give everyone a suggestion - perhaps even a place to start from, when recording or editing their gameplay adventures.
• I see 'settings' asked about a lot, everywhere. Whether it is in game forums, technical forums, video editing and recording application forums, or even in my Inbox once in a while, people are constantly asking what settings to use, or "what settings do you use" - and that's great! I'm glad to see helpful replies of others (and sometimes short explanations on how someone is using a specific setting and why). As anyone who has asked me directly knows, I enjoy helping others with suggestions on settings and usually try to explain why I am using one setting over another.

And so, here is the first edition of a new addition to this blog, without further adieu:

 

This Month's Featured Setting

Bandicam's Xvid Codec

For the past little while, I have been messing with the Xvid codec - not the 'official' one from XviD.org that you have to download - the one that is built-in to Bandicam, easily available via pull-down menu in the Format area, where you choose which codec you want to record with. As of the most recent version of Bandicam [at the time of this post], Xvid is now the Default Codec that is pre-selected, when you install/startup Bandicam. Where in previous versions, a 'Bandisoft-optimized' MPEG-1 codec was the Default, now a 'Bandisoft-optimized' version of Xvid is thrust into the limelight - and I wanted to test this puppy out and see what tricks it can do!

If you've were computing through the 1990's, you may have heard about the Xvid codec. A competitor to the DivX codec around the turn of the millennium, I am actually going to skip over the history of the Xvid codec [other than this one paragraph]. Parts of such history may actually be a 'dark affair' (depending on who you talk to), worthy of it's own short documentary, as the DivX vs XviD history has some aspects in common to the history of other products and companies that were popular over time [with Saturday Night Television Specials such as "Apple vs Microsoft", "Xerox vs Apple" and more..]. As with many companies and products in popular use today, they all have "Origin Stories" that you won't find on The Internet and never will... And Now, Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Program

The Xvid codec is a version of MPEG-4 (it is MPEG-4 Part 2 or "H.263/ASP"), so it is directly related to it's younger-but-bigger brother, AVC (which is MPEG-4 Part 10 or "H.264/AVC"). As such, Xvid [ASP] does not have many of the functions that are found in H.264 [AVC], such as Deblocking, where the codec will try to 'hide' some compression artifacts that occur due to over-compression; but Xvid is still a great codec to record with, it's main strength being speed. Because it doesn't have many of the processing functions of it's more recent and bulkier MPEG-4 versions, it can 'figure out a frame and save it to a file' very quickly - which is essentially what is happening, technically, when game recording.

Recording with Bandicam's Default settings for their implementation of Xvid [designated herein as "Xvid(b)"**, to show that it is the "Bandicam-Optimized Version of Xvid"] will give you a Quality Setting of 80%. The capturing framerate, by Default, is set at 30 fps (Frames-Per-Second). The audio format, in this Default setting, is compressed "MPEG-1 Layer 2" format (MP2) for the Audio. Here is a screenshot showing what all of Bandicam's Default settings, for their implementation of Xvid, looks like in one image:

The 'Setting Of The Month': Bandicam's Version of Xvid, included with Bandicam (Default Settings)
Click to see Full Size

Below, are a sampling of a handful of games and the framerate performance hits that were seen while recording with these Default Xvid(b) settings (i.e. the differences between 'playing the game and not recording' versus 'playing the game and recording at the same time'):

Recorded Game Title	Resolution	Performance Hit (Δ)
Hitman: Absolution Benchmark	1366x768	~ 2 fps
Hitman: Absolution Benchmark	2560x1440	~ 4 fps
FurMark (Full Run)	1366x768	~ 2 fps
FurMark (Full Run)	2560x1440	~ 0 fps
Unigine Valley Benchmark	1366x768	~ 6 fps
Unigine Valley Benchmark	2560x1440	-
Batman: Arkham City Benchmark	1366x768	~ 4 fps
Batman: Arkham City Benchmark	2560x1440	~ 9 fps
Skyrim (Introduction)	1366x768	~ 0-8 fps
Skyrim (Introduction)	2560x1440	-
Minecraft	1366x768	~ 0 fps
Minecraft	2560x1440	~ 0 fps

table code created by Danny Sanchez (journalistopia.com)

As you can see in the table above, the difference in framerate between 'Playing' and 'Playing While Recording' is very minimal [the performance 'drain' being accentuated in higher resolutions for most games]. Although only a handful of games were tested, I did try testing both spectra of resolutions possibly in use by the average gamer today, by recording with an 'enthusiast' resolution (2K/1440p) as well as a commonly-run laptop/notebook resolution (1366x768) which could also be run by older or less-capable systems. Bandicam's optimized Xvid performs very well in the tests, with almost as low of a performance change as the 'super-light-performance-hitting' MJPEG codec.

Like MJPEG however, Xvid's weakness is the lack of tools to compensate for compression. Again, I mention here the MPEG-4/AVC ability to somewhat 'hide' compression artifacts, with code for utilities such as "Deblocking" built into the codec, where the edges of areas that the codec is making its calculations in are 'softened', so that the 'blocky' effect of high compression (called Macroblocking) is less visible. In Xvid, there is no such utility, so if too high a compression level is attempted [too low a bitrate is stipulated], then these 'block' artifacts can easily be seen, especially in 'flatter' areas of a frame (portions of the screen with less color and/or changes happening), as seen in the below frames, extractions from the actual recorded video frames themselves:

[In the examples below, when the compression artifacts aren't as obvious, I will show the entire screenshot in compressed JPG format, then underneath I 'zoom in' to show the compression artifacts from the codec as magnified extractions from the original video frames, in BMP (BitMaP) format. I use sampled areas for that, as full 1440p Screenshots in an uncompressed format would be over 10MB each]

Xvid(b)** at 90% Quality [altered from Default 80% Quality Setting], Battlefield 3.
Click to see Full Size

The result when recording at 90% Quality (up from the Default of 80%) was very satisfactory, with only 'nit-pickable' parts to show the codec's weaknesses, like the Upper Left area of this scene above (with the dark interior areas). Some artifacting can also be seen in the Middle Top area (slightly obvious even in this compressed JPG), where the plain sky areas take the brunt of the compression of this frame taken from the original game recording video produced by Bandicam.

Xvid(b)** at Bandicam's Default of 80% Quality, Battlefield 3.
Click to see Full Size

The above image is taken from a game recording of Battlefield 3 that had some pistol action going on, with an explosion caught in the background. The quality of Bandicam's Default setting isn't too bad and high action scenes can actually look quite acceptable. For example, in this frame above, with the explosion occurring on an upper walkway, only the Right Edge of the explosion (with the debris) has obvious Macroblocking - and the sidewalk [and foliage] macroblocks had to be 'looked for' here - and are less noticeable in the moving video. The 'flatter area' (with less colour variations) in this scene, is the poster advertisement, which the codec punishes with compression, leaving colour banding and macroblocks evident. The rest of scene is more complicated material and demands the codec to utilize more bitrate, ending up looking not too bad at all, when VBR is used (Variable BitRate, "changing data rate") mode).

[I personally found that in dark (as in nighttime) scenes, at 80% Quality there was distracting colour quantization (colour quality loss) and macroblocks (little square compression artifacts); but for most material, the 80% Quality setting seems ok to use for Xvid(b)**, most of the time]

Xvid(b)** at Bandicam's Default setting for Xvid of 80% Quality, the Batman: Arkham City Benchmark.
Click to see Full Size

The above image is an extracted frame from a recording of the Batman: Arkham City Benchmark. A very difficult scene for any codec (unless you tell it to 'keep all quality, use 100%' and then don't mind the larger file size that will be created) it is hard for a codec to decide what to compress and what not to, as particles fly all over the place and light and dark areas shift around as the Benchmark runs through this area with changing levels/regions of Luma [lightness, brightness]. Bandicam's Xvid did a good job trying to keep the text sharp at 1440p - but at 80% Quality, macroblocks are everywhere (those present in the screenshot above are not from the JPG compression, they were present in the game recording itself). At 80% Quality, anything with subtle gradient colour changes are absolutely tortured by the codec, seen especially in the change from light to dark in the Center Top light fixture area and the Left Lower curtain region. Bright areas however, such as the light fixtures themselves and almost all of the particles flying around, are judged by the codec to be 'important to human eyes' and detail is kept high for those objects.

Xvid(b)** at Bandicam's Default setting of 80% Quality, Minecraft.
Click to see Full Size

The above frame is taken from a recording of the Minecraft Demo starting shoreline, originally captured at 1440p (the image is resized down to 1280x720). I was interested in how Xvid would handle Minecraft, a difficult game to capture and compress, as hard edges and lines are everywhere. Bandicam's version of Xvid did surprisingly well, as the video recording itself is a joy to watch, with compression artifacts barely noticeable (recording at higher resolutions helps with that, but uses more disk space for the game recordings). Magnification of the original video frame is just below (next image):

These two sampled regions are magnified to 200% (doubled in size). They were extracted from the game recording frame above, which itself came from the original game recording produced by Bandicam and the built-in Xvid codec.
Click to see Full Size

While not as obvious in the moving video, the above frame extractions (both Left and Right sides) show Gibbs Effects ['ringing' or 'mosquito noise'] around the hard edges of Minecraft's graphics. The colour gradient changes, blending slowly into the background/sky colour in the Right Half of the above image also cause Ringing and Macroblocks to occur. Distant water gets treated with extreme prejudice by the codec, as the jumble of lines and animation from the textures are 'sluffed together' [my technical term] and Macroblocks are obvious. Again, these artifacts are more obvious in the stills from the game recording - the video itself, when watched, was more appealing to the eye and these compression artifacts aren't as noticed as the frames fly by and the cow looks at you in a wondering manner.

Regardless of some of Xvid's compression shortcomings illustrated above, with the speed that it performs at, along with the ability to turn up the Quality setting in Bandicam, these artifacts shown will not occur as often in higher quality settings - and then Xvid can be a nice codec to run with, especially if a system cannot handle a codec that does higher processing on the frames [taking more time to do calculations on them and saving them to a file, creating 'lag']. Older systems or laptops that do not have the hardware to utilize GPU-accelerated game recording (with codecs such as NVIDIA's CUDA and NVENC, AMD's App Acceleration and Intel's Quick Sync) can utilize Xvid as a less-taxing codec to record with [as another option on the Utility Belt of Game Recording Codecs to choose from]. Indeed, it is almost as speed efficient as the ever-compatible MJPEG codec, for capturing, editing and compression.

The default setting, when installing Bandicam, creates a GOP of 150 [GOP stands for Group Of Pictures or the number of frames between Information/Key Frames in a video]. This is fine for normal viewing (and it leaves a lot of headroom for compressing 'only the differences' between the frames, resulting in smaller filesizes), but a large GOP can create problems with editing, as many NLE's (Non-Linear Editors, such as Sony's Vegas/MovieStudio line, Adobe's Premiere products, Lightworks and more) do not work well with so many frames in-between the Keyframes - however, editors such as Corel's VideoStudio, CyberLink's PowerDirector and Microsoft's own Movie Maker do not exhibit this issue [I tested these three applications by hand, myself, just to make sure and they imported fine and were handled without the "glitchy-ness" or "trails" that were exhibited in (for example) Vegas].

Although originally captured for an article on the Xvid codec here (which can potentially also experience the issue mentioned in the above paragraph) this image shows an example of what the "trails" or "glitchy-ness" will look like, as it was captured from a video with a Large GOP (large keyframe interval) output produced by Vegas. (Click to see Full Size)

When editing a video with a large GOP, the video editing application must 'seek' to the next Keyframe whenever it has to process a request and calculate/build all of the frames from there (which slows things down and delays processing and editing). Also, depending on the application, with some programs video can only be 'cut' on keyframes (unless an application is coded to create keyframes where needed). All of these steps and problems created by 'Long-GOP' video can be avoided [when using the above-mentioned video editing programs] by simply adjusting the Keyframe Interval in the Xvid settings to "1".

One caveat to keep in mind, with setting a Keyframe Interval of "1": although it will now make for speedy/easier/morecompatible editing with many video editing applications, the codec will not have as much 'headroom' to work with, when compressing your game recording material. 

What this means is, that instead of only keeping track of the changes between frames (say, a person running by down the side of the screen), where the codec will literally only save those 'differences' in the file; it now has to save every single portion of the viewable screen in every single frame, complete and independent in 'stand-alone' frames (the KeyFrames), and while the video will be much faster in seeking and have increased editing compatibility, the codec requires much more bitrate now, to save 'everything' in every single frame.

The result: your video file size will end up larger than before. However, you can now edit the video in Vegas, Premiere, Lightworks and more... the choice of how to go about this aspect then, is up to you [whether to use a GOP of 1 for easier editing, or not]. If you do not use these specific video editing programs (perhaps instead, you are using PowerDirector or VideoStudio Pro or Movie Maker, which to not have as much trouble with 'Long-GOP' material, not needing the GOP to be one frame) or you are not having problems with whatever editor you are currently using, there is no need to make this change to the Xvid recording settings in Bandicam [this is why there is no green indicator arrow in my 'Suggested Settings' illustration coming up in a little while, for this option]

Staying on the topic of Bitrate [from the above paragraph] for a moment, "..what kind of file sizes are we looking at..?", you might ask. Well, here is a sampling of some of the Bitrates that were seen when recording with Xvid(b)** at Bandicam's Default Settings for the codec:

Recorded Game Title	Resolution	BitRate (Mbps, GBph)
Hitman: Absolution Benchmark	1366x768	~ 34 Mbps, 0.97GB/hour
Hitman: Absolution Benchmark	2560x1440	~ 83 Mbps, 2.4GB/hour
FurMark (Full Run)	1366x768	~ 44 Mbps, 1.2GB/hour
FurMark (Full Run)	2560x1440	~ 45 Mbps, 1.2GB/hour
Unigine Valley Benchmark	1366x768	~ 37 Mbps, 1.06GB/hour
Unigine Valley Benchmark	2560x1440	-
Batman: Arkham City Benchmark	1366x768	~ 20 Mbps, 0.57GB/hour
Batman: Arkham City Benchmark	2560x1440	~ 54 Mbps, 1.5GB/hour

table code created by Danny Sanchez (journalistopia.com)

Just to compare some file sizes of other codecs: the Low Quality setting for the Dxtory codec (with Compression) recorded a run of the Unigine Valley Benchmark (at 1080p) at about 326Mbps (9.3GB/hour), while FRAPS produced a recording of about 291Mbps (8.3GB/hour), with Lagarith (in Default/RGB Mode) creating a recording of the same material that ran at about 235Mbps (6.7GB/hour). Of course, bitrates fluctuate, depending on the complexity of the material (more movement/action/etc, which requires more bitrate to properly represent the material.. but a longer explanation of that is outside the scope of this post [believe it or not...I'm trying to keep them 'short'! hah]).

The other setting that can be changed in the Bandicam interface for their version of the Xvid codec, is the Quality. Here is an example of the differences in quality output at the various Quality settings for Bandicam's Xvid:

Comparison between varying Quality settings, for Bandicam's version of Xvid (from Left to Right; Quality at 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% Quality). The JPG compression used for this composite [the four videos side-by-side] did not overly affect the Macroblocking occurring - the 'blockyness' seen in these frames is almost untouched, even though the videos from the original Unigine Valley Benchmark recordings were converted into this JPEG image - this is very close to how it looked in the video (although slightly more noticeable as still images). Click to see Full Size

As you can see, the perceived quality for Xvid goes down quickly, with Macroblocks becoming more obvious as the quality setting goes down. However, acceptable Quality can be maintained if the quality setting is kept high [in my opinion, stay at 90% or higher if you can]. Remember though, that with the higher quality settings, more space will be required by the codec, to save all of that data. Also, if using a Keyframe Interval of "1" (creating a GOP size of one frame, each frame in the video then being a Keyframe), the codec will also not have as much room to compress the images/video and your output size will increase. As stated above though, the benefit of using a Keyframe Interval of "1" is, then your game recordings will be easily importable/editable in NLEs like Premiere, Vegas, Lightworks, etc - if you are are having troubles with those specific applications [if you are not, there is no need to limit the GOP to one frame, which is why there is no green arrow indicator in the below illustration]. Below, are my Suggested Settings then, for this codec in Bandicam, in one image:

The 'Setting Of The Month': Bandicam's Version of Xvid, included with Bandicam (Suggested Settings):
Quality is at 90%, PCM ("Uncompressed") Audio is selected [mainly for editing compatibility], a higher compression ("Smaller file Size" option) is chosen (and a Keyframe interval of "1" is suggested for compatibility with editing applications such as Vegas, Premiere, Lightworks, etc. if required [only change if needed as it increases file size, no green arrow indicator is shown on the Keyframe Interval])
Click to see Full Size

Overall, I think 'Bandisoft's version of Xvid' in Bandicam does a decent job with Quality - and is downright excellent where Performance is concerned. On my system (and hopefully yours), Bandicam's Xvid had very little drain on the performance of the game while recording with it, creating very little 'lag' while recording (it had a low 'performance hit'). As long as the quality setting is kept high (90-100%), the recorded output Quality can be quite acceptable, with only a little Macroblocking (block shapes being visible) and Posterization [colour quantization, which is a reduction in the amount of colours, resulting in 'colour banding' or 'bands' seen] in the darker and 'flatter' areas of a frame in a game recording (Macroblocking may occur in areas such as skies, less-colourful regions, etc). Try out some recordings with Bandicam's version of Xvid for yourself and see if you prefer using it for recording your gaming adventures.

Please note dear reader, that I am not saying "this codec is the best one to record with" or "use this one only". I am merely showing that it is possible, or how to tweak it for quality or file size, as to your own personal tastes. There are many codecs out there to choose from when game recording and although some are more apt for certain types of games than others, overall it is your own choice to do with as you wish - use what you prefer. 

See you in the games!

Personal Short Version/Opinion:

While the Bandisoft-optimized version of Xvid included in Bandicam works pretty well and is fast, I find myself not using it very often, other than this past month or so, for testing. After recording for a while with Xvid's 'successor', h.264/AVC, the extra features of Deblocking and other tools in AVC have 'spoiled' me. Going back to the slightly more 'blocky' output of Xvid - even though it creates very little lag when recording - is slightly distracting to my eyes. When I see an Xvid game capture of mine now, my eyes are instantly drawn to the darker/flatter areas of the scene and those little tiny block shapes...and I sigh at the slowly-aging Xvid codec, remembering its' heyday' of compressing my TV shows recorded on my ATi TV Wonder PCI card. The late 1990's and the 2000's were 'Xvid's Time' to me, when I used it for almost everything - and while it performs well in game recording today (even Xvid.org's 'Official' version, with the right settings), I am now just too used to the benefits of more modern codecs, like h.264/AVC, which can even use the videocard/hardware, for GPU-accelerated recording.

I realize there are a lot of people gaming on laptops out there, and not everyone has a dedicated/separate videocard inside their system to record with, but the more I use my GPU to record with, the more I am impressed with the performance when recording most games [note that some games 'don't like' GPU-accelerated recording (are not fully coded for compatibility with it) and these games have large hits to performance with it]. At the moment of this writing, I have two NVIDIA videocards running in my system (performing together in SLI mode) and I am enjoying using the GPU-accelerated CUDA offering in Bandicam to record with. Like AMD's AppAcceleration and INTEL's QuickSync, CUDA utilizes H.264/AVC through the hardware to record, having high performance [for most games] and producing nice output, utilizing some of the newer aspects of MPEG-4 (such as Deblocking) when recording, to hide compression artifacts [the little 'glitches' from compressing the video]. The speed, and presence of light 'compression correction' from this hardware implementation of MPEG4 has spoiled me now, and I am finding it hard to go back to the slightly more obvious artifacting in 'older' codecs, such as MPEG-1 or Xvid (which is 'older' MPEG-4), especially when those codecs are used at lower quality settings, to try and save hard drive space. (Turning up the Quality settings for these codecs helps a lot, if your system can handle it)

As CPU architecture evolves and modern CPUs have 'mini-GPUs' built into them, the differentiation of capability between 'gaming rigs' and 'gaming laptops' blurs [as far as game recording goes], as GPU-accelerated game recording is possible now by less and less expensive hardware (AMD APUs) and processors (INTEL's QuickSync), even within laptops [as opposed to full desktop systems]. This means that "gaming laptops" now have much more capability when it comes to game recording, today. If your laptop is capable of using GPU-accelerated recording, give it a try. If it is not, systems that do not use the GPU to compress their video can still perform well recording games, as is shown with the above article, by using Xvid. "If you can't choose the H.264 encoder in Bandicam, choose 'Xvid'" ~ Quote from the Bandicam.com website.

Do some testing of your own dear reader - and have fun experimenting, finding a codec that you will eventually prefer to record with - and See You In The Games...

Last Remarks (in addition/continuation to the Prologue of this article): 

Another thing to keep in mind is, that my settings (both for Recording and Editing/Rendering) change slightly over time... I may have been able to purchase a new disk drive recently for instance, so then I will allow my recordings to take up more space [for a while anyway]. I may be trying out a Demo/Trial of a new version of a Video Editing Application, so I have been experimenting with some different Rendering settings. Perhaps a videocard driver or codec was updated, so now I will experiment a bit with the recording application settings, seeing if I can squeeze a little more Quality out of my recordings, while keeping the Performance high. All of these reasons and a few more, are why my settings constantly change over time. Don't worry, I'll try to remember to come here and share them with you, anytime I find a "Good Combination" that works well for either High Quality or Fast Performance, the 'Holy Grail' of course being a Perfect balance of both. 

As I have begun more dedicated testing over the past few years, I have found that specific games themselves 'prefer' certain recording and rendering settings over others. What I mean by "prefer" is: as new game rendering engines are written, hardware architectures change, and programmers utilize 'something over another' in general during a game's development, this affects what settings a game 'works better with', whether it is a specific game recording program, hardware/GPU, or specific recording and rendering settings; hence my usage of the word "prefer". 

This is why, for example, some games will perform better on an AMD/ATi-based videocard in Benchmarks and Reviews than an NVIDIA-based GPU - and then other games will have better results on an NVIDIA-based videocard over an AMD/ATi-based GPU - those games were simply being developed [the programmers wrote the code] on a system with that certain GPU installed in it at the time. This also means there is a chance of specific optimizations in programming that slightly favour one brand of GPU over another [and they may even have been 'compensated for their efforts' by that respective company, but *shhh* these things aren't spoken of outside Mordor]. 

In regards to the above and game recording, I have found that some games will have better performance with different game recording applications as well. For example, one game may have less of a performance hit while recording with Dxtory and then another game will have better performance recording with Bandicam [as an example] - it all depends on the code and how it is written and being rendered. That's why I 'change it up' so often, altering my recording settings (and rendering settings) as each game I play exposes its nuances. That's what I mean if I ever say a game 'seems to prefer' recording with one game recording program over another. 

Keep this all of the above in mind then and also remember dear reader, that I am never telling you "you should use this", I am always suggesting only a possibility in my posts, and it is always up to you to try it out and decide if you want to use a recommendation of mine or not.

 [I encourage everyone to always take the good ideas from others and leave the bad, making up a composite of their own liking and preferences and what they want to utilize - whether it is with game recording and editing, or Life In General - but, that last part is for another blog...] 

 **[designated as "Xvid(b)", to show that it is the "Bandicam-Optimized Version of Xvid"]

Game Tip - Planetside 2: Missing Terminal Panels/Displays with Anti-Aliasing Enabled (Fix/Workaround)

Just a quick tip for Planetside 2 that I meant to post a while back: If you have Enabled AA through the Control Panel of your Video Card (NVIDIA or AMD/ATi) and can no longer see the display screens of the Vehicle/Resupply Terminals or other transparency effects (and if you want to keep AA enabled and see them), all you have to do is go into the in-game 'Graphics' Settings and adjust the 'Render Quality' - even just knocking it down from 100% to 99% will allow them to show up again - a screenshot example of the setting and the result is below
Have fun and See You In The Games!