我在执行一项功能，将屏幕截图反复输出肮脏的矩形2种不同的镜头之间，然后发送重新绘制屏幕在一个窗口。

I am implementing a feature that will take screen shot repeatedly and output dirty rectangles between 2 different shots then send re-draw the screen in a window.

我可以得到它在20〜30FPS之间运行当前。它已经是可以接受的。但后来我做了一个基准，衡量其性能。发现上述 Graphics.CopyFromScreen（）占用的处理时间的50％。 （是的，即使在最坏的情况下，它仍然比找到所有的脏矩形需要更长的时间），然后我用原生API实现的BitBlt（）并没有得到改善。

I can get it running between 20~30FPS currently. It is already acceptable. But then I made a benchmark and measured its performance. Found out that the Graphics.CopyFromScreen() takes up to 50% of the processing time. (Yep. Even in the worst case, it still takes longer than find all the dirty rectangles) Then I used native API implementation BitBlt() and get no improvement.

我知道有可能没有任何实际的理由，使其比任何30FPS快于这种情况。我只是想知道，有没有更快的方式采取了截屏？

I know there may not be any practical reasons to make it any faster than 30FPS in this case. I am just wondering, is there any faster way to take a screen shot?

感谢。

推荐答案

这是非常类似的问题问了几个年前：这里。这个问题是，是否的DirectX的捕获能力，可以用来获得更好的性能。

This is very similar to a question asked several years ago: Here. That question was whether directx's capturing abilities could be used to get better performance.

的共识是，它可能不会提供任何的性能提升，TightVNC的做它很快被欺骗。它使用不具有使用该（presumably）.NET是使用API​​的驱动。

The consensus was that it probably wouldn't provide any performance increase, TightVNC does it very quickly by cheating. It uses a driver that doesn't have to use the API that (presumably) .NET is using.

在某些时候，我记得查看源$ C ​​$下的Camstudio ，我相信他们使用DirectX的捕获能力。我不认为你可以把这么多过去的每秒3​​0帧，并且大部分时间甚至没有。我不知道这是用钩子有问题的Camstudio使用弄清楚当事情已经改变或实际捕获机制。

At some point I recall looking at the source code for Camstudio and I believe they use directx's capturing capabilities. I don't think you can push that much past 30 fps, and most of the time not even that. I'm not sure if that is a problem with the hooks camstudio uses to figure out when something has changed or the actual capture mechanism.