What are the benefits of „Written in Rust“ here? As far as I understand this is basically a GUI for FFMPEG, which is written in C. Is it just marketing?
There seems to be a trend of people building frontends to already existing tools, then advertising their software as though it was itself implementing the underlying functionality.
Considering the original tool was abandoned, I think its fair game. They also noted they made some improvements over the original tool. I assume the author wanted a simple tool like the original but found some bugs, dug into the code, realized he could re-write it in what he was comfortable in.
"Written in Rust" grants +4 trustworthiness, +4 ability to write a blog post on memory safety and 2% resistance to ego loss at the cost of -5 alertness and -3 O.G. street cred points
People always say this, and I get it - maybe it feels like an attempt to ride a hype train.
But if you're interested in Rust ecosystem, you're probably interested in how someone wraps FFMPEG in rust, and so that tag might be valuable. Maybe we can tag projects based on languages, and help avoid this.
Same - it seems like a decent, small, example of using gtk4 bindings in rust. These kinds of projects are great particularly for anyone comfortable in C and building up fluency in rust.
"written in rust" is a red flag for me. Even if it is better, the fact that the most important feature to advertise is "written in rust" instead of "supports wayland" or something, tells me the developer's priorities are out of whack.
Honestly haven't found a nice video recording UI for wayland. Been using a bash alias with `wf-recorder`. This one doesn't seem to work with Hyprland (wayland) either.
obs studio is kind of overkill but works well. You can even record several windows individually and have a different layout than what you actually have on screen.
OBS is really pretty straightforward once you get your head around, and it's super flexible. I'd hesitate to even call it overkill, as for simple screen recording you only need to touch a few settings one time. and then it's two clicks for the rest of all time. (One to start recording, one to stop, I even have them keybound).
OBS is intimidating. I found it to be daunting compared to Windows gamebar (Win+G) and MacOS (CMD+Shift+5, pick a mic). The power is worth the pain if you need it. Yet I don't recommend it to normies.
Of course Wayland is usually Linux so users are often more technical anyway.
I haven't tried it, but looking at the code, it talks to xdp to setup the screencast session and then gstreamer with the pipewiresrc to record it. It should work on any compositor with an xdp implementation that supports the Screencast protocol. KDE's does.
Are you sure it hangs and doesn't just show a dialog somewhere for you to select which screen to cast / give it permission to screencast?
As in it hangs when you launch it, not that it launches successfully but then hangs when you press the Record button? Probably a more fundamental windowing problem than the screencasting interface interaction then.
The GNOME screen recorder works the best out of all the ones I've tried. It allows you to record a selected part of the screen as well, which Blue Recorder doesn't
Looking at the source code, this ui can handle x11 or wayland, but wayland can only do window recording or monitor recording, for x11 it's all just handed over to ffmpeg which can handle x,y,width,height input variables.
A few weeks ago, I tried Blue Recorder just because Gnome's Screen Recorder gave out some static when recording a certain area. IIRC, in Blue Recorder I can't even do recording a selected area, maybe because I am on wayland.
Interesting. On wlroots compositors, it is easier to capture a region than a window, so many screen recording tools that target wlroots (for example wl-recorder) support regions but not windows.
