ccapture.js VS Nuxt.js

I also tried to find a better recording method. Since I’m now using canvas, there are some solutions to recording that seemed quite elegant. For example, paper.js uses requestAnimationFrame to achieve its smooth animation. There are libraries like ccapture.js that hooks into the various methods like requestAnimationFrame and setInterval, allowing it to render each frame separately.

I actually spent a fair bit of time on this and eventually got something to work. Someone named "spite" made a great library called CCapture for doing this, but it needs to be updated and repackaged for ES6. Right now it is painful to integrate into your project, but it could be super-easy. You can help to encourage someone to fix the issues here.

Check out CCapture.

The image capture step uses ccapture to ensure that the playback frame is converted to an image. All frame images to webm video.

ccapture.js basically let's you write out frames from a threejs camera, which you then stitch together with ffmpeg.

I use ccapture, using the png option, which will spit out a tar with a png of each frame, and then I stitch them with ffmpeg.

This video is 1800 frames (30 FPS * 60s)... a browser trying to save 1800 individual frames would lock up and die. Ccapture.js hooks into the browser's rendering code and captures the frames as a 'blob' - a binary object that is often used for streaming video - and then wraps them up into one single download.

p5.js runs the sketch, ccapture.js captures all of the frames (1800 in this video), and ffmpeg combines the frames into an MP4.

I use ccapture.js, which captures the frames as a blob in real-time then exports it as a .tar file full of jpgs when the sketch is finished (with 'finished' defined as reaching 1800 frames, in this case). This is a lot better than having the browser try to save 1800 jpgs the usual way.

According to Node Package Manager (NPM), Next.js has about 3.9 million weekly downloads while Nuxt.js has about 438,000. Although Next.js has a significantly higher number of weekly downloads, Nuxt.js still has a robust number of users. We can conclude that both frameworks are relevant and will stand the test of time.

Nuxt team themselves pointed that out [in first release](https://www.npmjs.com/package/nuxt/v/0.0.1) as well as you can see that statement in [Nuxt's wikipedia article](https://cdn.domin.pro/K2Qa). I completely agree with how Nuxt is better for an amount of features.

Node is basically back-end Javascript. While powerful alone, almost exclusively you will use a back-end framework like Next.js or Gatsby when using React, and then maybe Nuxt or Gridsome in Vue.

Both Vue.js and React have their own set of tools and libraries to help developers build and maintain their applications. Vue.js has Vue CLI and Nuxt.js, while React has Create React App and Next.js.

Nuxt.js is a free and open-source JavaScript framework based on Vue.js that helps you develop modern web applications using SSR (server-side rendering) which provides a faster load, better SEO (search engine optimization), and better caching capabilities.

We made a LiveChat Next.js App template. Using Next.js as a foundation for the project, we have a front-end app with built-in routing, Server Side Rendering (SSR), and Server Side Generation (SSG) built with React, but on top of that, ready-to-use API routes built in the form of Serverless functions. If you prefer Vue.js or Svelte, you can choose similar frameworks, like Nuxt.js and SvelteKit.

Not oc, but maybe give Nuxt a look?

Vue's docs are some of the best I've ever read. Nuxt and Craft are pretty great too. I especially like how Craft's docs are bifurcated into the docs which give you the 20/80 + code snippets, and the class reference, which is complete documentation of every method, type, param, etc of the platform.

Nuxt - the Vue alternative to NextJS - supports both static site generation and SSR.