Comment 2 for bug 1294362

I think it's OK (even preferred) for screencasting to capture at a steady rate (as much as possible at least), regardless of whether something is changing on screen or not. What's the point of a screencast with an unstable frame rate (e.g. frameN from frameN+1 being 2 seconds apart because nothing changed)? Screencasting does not fall under the same performance/power restrictions we have for normal compositing.

The alternative would be to timestamp frames (which I think was brought up at some point in our stand-ups), although I am not sure how easy it would be to convert the resulting stream to something watchable.