Slow tranfer rate through ZUNE to HD7? - HD7 General

I just wanted to transfer a 300+MB Video file to HD7 using ZUNE.
It astonished me that it has been 10mins when only 6% was transferred.
Anybody has a higher transfer rate here?
It seems impossble to transfer an HD video because it will took several hours..

I transferred a 700+MB movie fairly quickly. I didn't time it but it was definitely less than 5 mins.

no problems syncing tv shows about 400mb each. Didn't time it either, but it was fairly quick and done over wifi.

Related

Big files transfer

Hello everyone,
I have a problem with mine Diamond.
When i try to transfer a Divx, so a file like 600 Mb, the trasfer get much slower at 50%, so that the transfer time increase rapidly from 15 minutes to hours. I tried to use even the active sync mode, than the Storage card mode with the same result. I have enought space on my internal storage, and i have had the some result with bouth 1 Gb of free memory and 3,5 Gb of free memory.
Is it an known bug? Is there a solution?
Thanks for your support and congratulation for the forum.
Noone else has this problem?
are you connecting the device to a USB 2.0 port? Because on USB 1.0 i would expect a 600mb file to take hours to copy.
I'm using USB 2.0 port. The problem is that until 50% the time is regular, just some minutes...than it get increased to hours...
The only other thing i can think of then is if you are using Vista by any chance it has been reported it has/had a problem with copying large files (not just with the Diamond, just in general)
Ok...we should have found the problem... I use vista.
So do you know if is there any solution?
I decided against running vista to be honest, but i did a quick search and found some information here: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/08/24/slow-file-and-folder-copy-move-transfer-or-delete-operation-speed-problem-in-vista-fix/
You can also read more if you simply type in 'slow copying on vista' into google. This is only a guess at what your problem could be though. I know that using USB 2.0 on XP transfers files for me very quickly (just wish i could get iGO to bloody work though when copied! )
I have a problem any high quality video files, such as DivX. Apparently there is supposed to be a version specific for the Diamond of The Core Media Player, don't know what's happening with it.
Thank for your help gary.bannister.
I have tryied the suggestion written in the website without success...
Thank you anyway.
I only hope it's not a problem of my device because i haven't heard noone else with this problem.
Bye
Ive had this same problem a few times, but ive noticed that if i plug the diamond in another usb slot then i get normal speeds.

OTG issues

I got an OTG cable and the paid version of Nexus Media Importer and MXPlayer Pro from the Play Store and a 64gb Sandisk thumbdrive. At first, it looked like I would be able to watch movies on my N7 with this setup, but today I tried to watch a movie and it stopped midway. Tried a bunch of others and the same issue at varying points in the movie. Sometimes it hangs in a minute or two, sometimes it plays for 10-15. Sometimes the screen freezes, sometimes it restarts the movie and sometimes it just stops and goes back to NMI's file manager. I can transfer movies from the drive, but even that is hit and miss sometimes. I was hoping to be able to use OTG to watch movies on some long flights I have coming up this weekend. Is this typical behavior of OTG on an unrooted device? It's definitely not an issue with my conversions (mp4 files) or the drive as the movies play fine once transferred to the N7. I also have a 16gb stick with music on it and it plays fine, but I can't see any of my WMA files and I can only play one song at a time even with Random turned on.
Did the same OTG cable always work? I ask because I purchased an OTG cable that at first seemed to work fine but noticed it was slow and disconnected a lot but me thinking it was normal I kept using it until I purchased another one for someone else and noticed that one was better quality and seemed way faster and wasnt getting the same errors I get with mines when using it with my DSLR.
alexgp87 said:
Did the same OTG cable always work? I ask because I purchased an OTG cable that at first seemed to work fine but noticed it was slow and disconnected a lot but me thinking it was normal I kept using it until I purchased another one for someone else and noticed that one was better quality and seemed way faster and wasnt getting the same errors I get with mines when using it with my DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The one I bought was from a seller recommended in here, but I guess I could have gotten a bad one.

EXTREMELY slow USB speeds

Howdy y'all,
I noticed this first on my purely-stock ROM, and I was hoping that ViperROM might fix this, but no luck. When copying files to or from the internal storage to my Windows 8 64-bit ultrabook, it takes about 45 minutes for 500 megabytes. To back up my phone, I have to leave it transferring literally all night.
I know that my laptop has ONLY USB 3.0 ports, so I don't know if this somehow causes a problem with the HTC One? As annoying as it sounds, I might have try getting the USB host cable and using a standalone stick to transfer this stuff.
A little off-topic, but I'm really starting to get impacted by this lack of storage... 32GB? That's abysmal... I take my photos in Zoe mode, and I filled up my storage the first weekend I owned this thing, with casual sightseeing camera use. I have to keep copying things off weekly to make this phone work for me. Anyone have some USB-related tips, by chance?
I get the same slowness, but not all the time. Yes its quite weird
Hmmm...that's strange. Coming from a GS3 the transfer speed on this is considerably fast, and I can even see imagine previews. (I never could before with MTP). I transferred about 2 GB in pictures and it took around 17 minutes
Sent from My Only "One"
My S3 and GN2 were lightning-fast compared to this phone. 2,000MB should transfer in about 80 seconds over USB 2.0. That's not even thinking about USB 3.0 at all.
I'm seeing highly variable speeds with my T-mobile variant. I'm on CM10 at the moment. Some times it's OK, some times it's so bad the computer thinks I've disconnected the device. Something is seriously wrong here but I don't know what can be done about it.
I also tried on my linux laptop, same symptoms.
Anyone NOT seeing this issue with an HTC One?
tamale said:
I'm seeing highly variable speeds with my T-mobile variant. I'm on CM10 at the moment. Some times it's OK, some times it's so bad the computer thinks I've disconnected the device. Something is seriously wrong here but I don't know what can be done about it.
I also tried on my linux laptop, same symptoms.
Anyone NOT seeing this issue with an HTC One?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had to transfer off my pictures/videos because I ran out of room, (32GB, thanks to Sprint...) it took a combined 15-20 hours to transfer about 20GB. Those transfer rates are garbage. I too, only have USB 3.0 ports.
That comes out to 0.38MB/s -- or 388KB/s -- pure crap. I am considering doing over WiFi instead.
No issues with my transfer speeds-- given how many times I've used fastboot to push large image files around lately, I can say it only took me about 10 to 20 minutes on a bad day to move a ~500MB file.
ScrapMaker said:
I take my photos in Zoe mode, and I filled up my storage the first weekend I owned this thing, with casual sightseeing camera use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fear no more. 4.2.2 saves only one picture and one video, but allows you to extract pictures from the video if you feel like it. (As opposed to the 21 files it saves right now)
Also, I use USB 2 (old computer) and I have no complaints.
sauprankul said:
Fear no more. 4.2.2 saves only one picture and one video, but allows you to extract pictures from the video if you feel like it. (As opposed to the 21 files it saves right now)
Also, I use USB 2 (old computer) and I have no complaints.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully there is no difference in quality by scrubbing the video instead of saving the separate stills...
Some motherboards with usb 3.0 and win 8 do not jive well.
Rirere said:
No issues with my transfer speeds-- given how many times I've used fastboot to push large image files around lately, I can say it only took me about 10 to 20 minutes on a bad day to move a ~500MB file.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That comes out to 0.57MB/s, or 583KB/s. Also known as complete crap. Real-world USB 2.0 flash drive transfer rates are about 125MB/s, over 219 times faster than what you're getting here.
sauprankul said:
Fear no more. 4.2.2 saves only one picture and one video, but allows you to extract pictures from the video if you feel like it. (As opposed to the 21 files it saves right now)
Also, I use USB 2 (old computer) and I have no complaints.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't seen any Sense5/4.2.2 ROMs yet, have you?
benny3 said:
Some motherboards with usb 3.0 and win 8 do not jive well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be weird, (but still believable,) since my ultrabook came with Win8 64 and only USB 3.0 ports.
I just built a new PC with an Asus Sabertooth and i7 4770k. Didn't ever get the Intel brand USB 3.0 driver and through USB 3.0 I transferred 20 GB of music in under a half hour.
Sent from my HTCONE using xda app-developers app
Teeeejay said:
I just built a new PC with an Asus Sabertooth and i7 4770k. Didn't ever get the Intel brand USB 3.0 driver and through USB 3.0 I transferred 20 GB of music in under a half hour.
Sent from my HTCONE using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm backing up my phone to wipe everything, and I'm seeing the same sort of 17-hour/6GB transfers. This is ridiculous...
I plugged in my phone to a USB port on my HTPC with USB 2.0 ports and copied the whole thing in 30 minutes. I don't get what's up with this phone and USB 3.0 ports. It was a PITA to root my phone as well...

WiFi Bandwidth and Router considerations

Because Chromecast communicates solely via WiFi, the minimum sustained wireless bandwidth is critical for streaming quality.
This is usually not a problem for "normal" Chromecast applications that pull streams from the Internet - those services are designed to adapt to and scale with the available connection speed.
Content streaming from local devices is a different scenario altogether.
Chromecast doesn't necessarily work the same as traditional set-top media players (Apple TV, WDTV, Roku, etc) when streaming media from your phone/tablet/computer (device-local) and LAN-based (from a server) media can consume more bandwidth than you would expect.
Depending on where the media is located and how it is being sent to Chromecast, up to 3x the media's bitrate may be consumed (and required) on the WiFi network. If you have high bitrate media, this can easily overload an 802.11g connection or even an 802.11n connection.
Keep in mind that connection speed is not constant, and is limited by both your environment and your router.
Other nearby WiFi devices can cause interference, and the 2.4 GHz wireless band that Chromecast uses is "crowded" with many devices like cordless telephones and microwave ovens using overlapping frequencies.
Also, routers vary in the wireless speeds they can maintain. Just because you have a 802.11n 150 Mbps connection, that does not mean your router can truly sustain 150 Mbps throughput.
Better routers advertise use cases for "HD streaming" and have Gigabit LAN ports rather than 100 Mbps LAN ports found on cheaper models.
Just like a Gigabit Ethernet USB 2.0 adapter will never reach full Gigabit speed due the USB 2.0 bottleneck (480 Mbps), cheaper routers often are limited by their internal processor's lack of forwarding speed.
See the attachments for use examples and how the required bandwidth can multiply: Note that the 10 Mbps figure is just an example.
Standard Internet stream example
YouTube, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, VEVO, etc use this methodology
Direct stream from LAN storage example
Plex (from a local Plex server) and fling (from a desktop) work this way. Desktop and Tab casting from Chrome also uses this data flow.
Data is sent from the LAN device via WiFi
Chromecast receives data from the LAN device via WiFi
Streaming from wireless device storage example
Casting content stored on the device (device-local) from Avia or RealPlayer Cloud use this method.
Data is sent from the casting device via WiFi to Chromecast
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
Forwarding from LAN storage example
Casting content stored on a LAN device (DLNA, network share, etc) from Avia uses this method.
Data is sent from the LAN device to casting device running Avia via WiFi
Data is sent from the casting device running Avia via WiFi to Chromecast - this is the forwarding piece, data travels through
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
To optimize available bandwidth for Chromecast:
Use an 802.11n dual-band router and put your other wireless devices on the 5 GHz access point whenever possible
or use a separate WiFi access point connected to the wired network for Chromecast
Use wired connections for cast sources (server/desktop/laptop) wherever possible
Reencode high-bitrate media to lower bitrate (4 Mbps should be fine for most use)
Optimize Chromecast's ability to get a stable WiFi signal - move it away from the TV using the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable
and/or move your router so it's closer to Chromecast (but not too close - too close can get into a "drowned in the noise" situation)
Great Post this deserves a Pin!
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
stevewm said:
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
sherdog16 said:
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It shouldn't.... Unless the run to the main router is abnormally long.
My current setup has my plex server across the house from my TV room. Two out of three routers are upstairs and one is in the room with my plex server. All but one router is set up as access points. The distance combined between the three routers is roughly 200 feet. The distance is split between the three. Then roughly 25 feet from the closest router to the ccast. I have no more noticeable lag in the TV room than using the ccast in the back bedroom that the plex server is in.
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly that. For home use, distance of wired connections doesn't matter much, as long as it's within specs and packets aren't being lost.
Distances for wireless connections, on the other hand, make a huge difference both in terms of latency and sustained transfer speed (bandwidth).
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
enricong said:
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
enricong said:
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750​
bhiga said:
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750​
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
enricong said:
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
bhiga said:
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
enricong said:
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
bhiga said:
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
enricong said:
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only other thing I can think of is to try unbinding Avast's network filter from the network interface (Properties the device itself and try un-checking any extra computer-looking icons) and trying it, often times disabling the firewall doesn't fully disable the network filter.
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
enricong said:
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
bhiga said:
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
enricong said:
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it took me 2 or 3 rounds to get past the basics... Please keep us updated on what you find out.

How to cast local videos without lag/stutter?

[Apologies if this is not the correct forum]
I'm unable to cast videos taken on my Note 3 to my Chromecast without lots of lag and buffering. Various casting apps (AllCast, LocalCast, etc) yield the same results. My wireless router is a Linksys WRT160Nv3. Where is the bottleneck? Is it even possible to cast videos from my phone to my Chromecast or is that asking too much?
Also, even casting pictures seems to take forever. Well, not forever, but it will take several seconds just to load one photo.
I'm wondering if upgrading my router would make a difference?
The Chromecast has a lot of trouble cast 1080p video from a device. New apps it a new router won't help. Its the limited processing power of the Chromecast. Maybe try uploading to Dropbox and casting from there. Or put it on your PC and cast with plex. Other than that unless you turn your video camera down to 720p there isn't a whole lot that would help you.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Cuzz1369 said:
The Chromecast has a lot of trouble cast 1080p video from a device. New apps it a new router won't help. Its the limited processing power of the Chromecast. Maybe try uploading to Dropbox and casting from there. Or put it on your PC and cast with plex. Other than that unless you turn your video camera down to 720p there isn't a whole lot that would help you.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Plex is a good suggestion, I'll try that. Does it also do photos?
hfuizo said:
[Apologies if this is not the correct forum]
I'm unable to cast videos taken on my Note 3 to my Chromecast without lots of lag and buffering. Various casting apps (AllCast, LocalCast, etc) yield the same results. My wireless router is a Linksys WRT160Nv3. Where is the bottleneck? Is it even possible to cast videos from my phone to my Chromecast or is that asking too much?
Also, even casting pictures seems to take forever. Well, not forever, but it will take several seconds just to load one photo.
I'm wondering if upgrading my router would make a difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lots of potential bottlenecks, but mostly 1080p video on phones/tablets tend to be too high a bitrate to successfully cast. Combine that with the potential bottlenecks of
Poor WiFi reception at Chromecast (try the extender and/or move Chromecast - side ports tend to have less blocked/interference from the TV)
Phone/Tablet WiFi interface bottleneck
Router inability to cope with traffic (doubt this is the case for you, as you have a high-performance router)
I'd try one of the PC-based file-casting apps on a wired PC. If that works, then it's probably your phone/tablet not being able to pump an adequate data rate out of its WiFi. A radio update might help.
But overall, the real solution is to reduce the bitrate of the video by compressing it. Plex can do this on-the-fly, if your Plex server is fast enough. Otherwise you can recompress to a new file with Handbrake or a variety of other compression utilities.
hfuizo said:
Plex is a good suggestion, I'll try that. Does it also do photos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Movies, photos, music and internet channels. I set plex up 2 weeks ago and have to say I barely use anything else now.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Cuzz1369 said:
Movies, photos, music and internet channels. I set plex up 2 weeks ago and have to say I barely use anything else now.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll give it a try tonight. That would work great for me since my phone dumps all my photos/videos to my PC every night anyway while I sleep.
hfuizo said:
I'll give it a try tonight. That would work great for me since my phone dumps all my photos/videos to my PC every night anyway while I sleep.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool. I was going g to mention that it is not as convenient as cast directly from your device. But if you have automatic backup that's a moot point.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
I have used Avia to cast from my Nexus 7 and have not experienced any issues at all.
Sent from my Amiga 500 using Workbench
xlxcrossing said:
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The OP is talking about local streaming, which can be done without internet at all. It could be WiFi interference, poor router performance, or the simple fact that Chromecast just doesnt have the processing power to stream local 1080p video. Plex is the easy solution, seeing as it processes the video on the machine where the server is. Thus eliminating the Chromecast to doing all the work.
My Chromecast is coming tonight and I will be trying this as well. Hopefully I'll be able to get Plex server working on my Ubuntu machine. My Windows box died last week.
xlxcrossing said:
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My connection is 50/10 but I'm with g2tegg, I don't think in this particular situation it matters.
If you are experiencing Stuttering...Something I want you to try.
Shut off security on your router and then try again to stream the same file.
If the stuttering stops then try turning security back on but using TKIP instead of AES.
Yes I have found Avia to be the best so far, well worth the price
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app

Categories

Resources