I haven't traded in the HD2 yet, the jury for me is still out on some additional WP7 features.
I was trying to upload videos from a retail unit online so I can see the video quality. Lo and behold there was no viable option that I could come up with that would allow me to upload or examine video taken on the HD7!
I tried many websites (megaupload, rapidshare, etc), but apparently MS only allows access to the photos when upload any files, kinda sh*tty if you ask me. I haven't had a chance to delve into the FB or YouTube apps, but I'm sure the video is converted to online format.
Other than using the Zune software, is there a way to upload/offload video from the HD7??!
I've heard about the cloud, but I don't think the retail HD7 would have access anyway as it wouldn't allow me to sign in.
Thanks.
Cyph.
No atm the only way to get videos of the phone is via zune/cable. Not a ****ty decision if you ask me, as all of my videos are recorded in 720p and thus are massive in size, so i wouldn't want the opputinity to rape my data allowance just so my friend can see a video.
I'd imagine this feature will become available in the future, but as i'm sure you're aware, MS wanted the basics covered when they released the OS, which they've done pretty well. Any further features will be in the form of updates/3rd Party Apps. Let's see what January/february's update will bring...
Related
I've been looking throughout the forums and Google and haven't found anything definitive about a browser that will enable me to watch streaming video to my HD7. I'm pretty sure adobe will eventually come with a update so IE can support it but is there currently an app browser out that supports flash? Skyfire pansied out from what I hear and doesn't support any WinMo and uZard is only for 6.x. Am I stuck with YouTube app for now?
I think no one yet. I've already searched and we should wait adobe give us flash support. i think i was better with my WinMo6.1 device and uZard Web
uZard was at most ok for now, but I would have alot of issues with it accessing sites like Facebook and being the servers from my understanding, are located in Korea. So me located in Maine, my data speed suffered greatly. I couldn't stand the bug when I would close uZard without switching back to regular mode from landscape mode. Right now I've been using YouTube App and just downloading the videos and just watching them on the player, but sometime I hate to wait. Someone needs to stick a firework in Adobe's ass. They would be making so much money with flash support for WP7!!
I don't think it's all necessarily Adobe's fault. IE on WP7 doesn't support plug-iins yet. So maybe when Mango drops, people's prayers will be answered
I do think flash will never come to windows phone, because it is a security risk! And closed OS must have a lot of security.
Regards,
SL55
Per the subject line, I need to be able to start working on videos using my photos to put together stories. SO I need to be able to import my photos, show how long they should show before transitioning to the next one, and support a music track and an audio (voiceover) track. I have looked at what is available online, but the only thing that even sort of works on Android is Jaycut, and I'll be darned if I can figure out a way to get it to do two audio tracks.
Anything (!) out there, or do I need to accept that I have a use case that requires iOs rather than Android?
There is movie studio.
Stealyourface said:
There is movie studio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm... have you actually tried using that program? Not only is there 0 documentation (the Google web page for it literally just lists that it comes with Honeycomb), but it does not seem to support any of the items I need.
Of course if you've figured out how to make it work, PLEASE tell
I have used it moderately. And to be honest from what I can see, it can probably get by to your needs. But would need some work. Honestly if you really need all that, and know the ipad can do it, get the ipad.
I know android is droping it, but come on. Just about every video playing web site use's it and loads more do to. I know about HTML 5, but next to no one use's that crap yet.
That and I would like to know if USB tethering can work on it like android.
Thanks to all
Don't expect to see Flash Player on a WP8 device as Adobe have stopped developing Flash for mobiles a while ago now. It's also about time for websites to drop this aged format and move with the times. HTML5 is the future, like it or not.
Ray.
Flash is among the worst things that ever happened to the internet. The adobe player is clunky, hangs a lot, eats a ton of resources, makes navigation a lot harder for lower end computers/devices.
Flash should be phased out of existance, HTML5 is much better in pretty much every respect.
And to answer question 2 is yes you can tether wp8, you can already tether windows phone 7. Just go to settings - internet sharing. Not sure if its same by usb but that gives you wifi and you can plug in via usb to save battery.
I would like flash to be dead as the next guy, BUT just about every video playing web site is flash and HTML 5 won't be done intill like 2022 or some crap like that. I don't want to wait 2,3,5 or 10 years for HTML 5 Ok. If there is 0 flash on WP8, I will stick to my S3 intill they fix that crap called HTML 5.
4ktvs said:
I would like flash to be dead as the next guy, BUT just about every video playing web site is flash and HTML 5 won't be done intill like 2022 or some crap like that. I don't want to wait 2,3,5 or 10 years for HTML 5 Ok. If there is 0 flash on WP8, I will stick to my S3 intill they fix that crap called HTML 5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, calm down. Number one, HTML5 isn't crap. It's far better than flash. Flash is crap. Just because none of your porn sites use it yet doesn't mean it's bad.
Number two, almost always, flash player and html5 are just handles for a video stream. It should be fairly easy to develop an app that [more thoroughly] detects and captures the stream and plays it back in the system video player, bypassing flash entirely. In fact that's what WP7 already does with sites like youtube.
Sites that don't work with this method are the ones using some form of DRM to prevent you from stealing their videos. This is a stupid thing to do and I suggest you direct your anger at the sites that have the deplorable practice of using DRM at the expense of their visitors: they are the real problem.
Given that it's not up to those sites in many cases if they use DRM protection on the content or not and given that HTML5 DRM support is also not about to happen anytime soon we can look forward to a Mobile Web that is not compatible with most Video Sites.
The current state of HTML5 support is pretty much the same tired old story we had in the days of HTML4 browser wars, with people needing to quite often use conditional CSS statements for different browsers. I guess they will have figured out how to interpret that standard some years after they start working on HTML6 - until then: prepare to be disapointed.
Hello folks,
I got my Chromecast, it works, I like it.
But I find it unnerving that the system is so closed.
Some guy has, months ago, released something he called "PiCast" as an open alternative on the Raspberry Pi.
I wonder: Why aren't there more devs bringing an open, extensible alternative, installable on a Raspberry Pi or other small computer, to life? I really don't understand it, since. like I see it, it doesn't seem particularly complicated! The following features would at least have to be implemented:
***********************************************
- media player software which can play a broad palette of formats and stream from different sources (VLC, Mplayer etc. come to mind an can surely be used as a part of the project)
- web interface which accepts URLs (web or LAN) of files that are to be played and passes them to the media player; and which accepts control commands for the now playing file like pause, forward etc.
Most convenient would be if these URLs could not only be http ones, but also SMB, streaming protocols etc.
Don't we all want a device where we NOT are confined to certain formats?
- apps for computers and mobile devices which let the user choose files he wants to watch / listen to and pass the URL to the web interface and which pass control commands like pause, forward to the web interface
- a customized, lean OS with a Chromecast-like, very simple UI
*************************************************
Any thoughts?
Best wishes,
Hasenbein
The entire reason for the CCast (which essentially replaced the GoogleTV fiasco) was to keep the system closed enough to get Content providers to support it due to the ability to use DRM and control the players being used.
Why do you think other projects like XBMC still to this day do NOT (and will NEVER) have access to Netflix for any sustainable time because Netflix will change their encryption and break any player app they do not have complete control over.
GoogleTV was actually blacklisted by the network websites to prevent it from playing content. All because it was just a little too open for their liking.
What @Asphyx said, plus Android TV sticks have been around for quite some time and already do similar. The key difference is market share. History is littered with proposed "standards" that never won. In the end it's not what is better, sometimes not even what's cheaper, but what picks up.
Iomega's Zip drive was inferior to SyQuest EZ drive, but Iomega won by marketing and hence adoption. Developers had more incentive to support Zip drives (not that much was specifically required but still) because there was a wider audience and market for them.
Adobe's changing the design market the same way. I still have CS6, but more and more I'm getting files from people on CC. And it's annoying. Essentially I'm being forced into CC if I want to work with anybody outside of my four walls.
Even though it's only available in select retail channels, Google is pushing Chromecast with TV ads. The fact that they've sold (or at least shipped) millions is a strong testament to its adoption rate. Even at my local stores, I can say just by the serial numbers they've cycled through, at least 500 have left the shelf since August 2013.
The market share attracts content providers, and the closed nature gives their lawyers ease regarding theft. Sure, there will always be people supporting TV sticks with clever solutions that are free or near-free, though they sometimes require jumping through numerous hoops (even moreso than Chromecast of today), and if something doesn't work as required, it involved researching. It's not like you can put in a support ticket or call support. Granted, Chromecast support isn't outstanding... but many of my non-techy friends have adopted Chromecast, even without hearing from me, and these are not people who visit XDA, nor are they people who would ever have run across or even considered an Android TV stick, nor are they people who have any idea of what an Arduino or Raspberry Pi is.
The draw is the consumer, and the consumer needs content to consume. Which means longevity of the product/concept/standard depends on support from the content providers.
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
And similarly, it's cheap enough that if Chromecast alone does not suit your needs, you can say, well hey, all I spent on the Chromecast was $35, so I don't see why that should stop me from also buying that other media box that does more things.
cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm definitely in this boat.
I have a semi-Smart TV that supports YouTube, Amazon, and a about 12 other "channels" - but its interface is slow and clunky. It also doesn't support DLNA video (sadly, one model year too early).
I have a HTPC that I use to play DVDs and Blu-rays from my media server, and even though I have a BT keyboard remote for it, navigating between Windows Media Center and browser-sourced video is fiddly.
Chromecast didn't replace my HTPC, it's just giving me a much easier way to view those browser-sourced videos.
However, if/when Chromecast gets DVD and BD playback, it very well might replace my HTPC...
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.
cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. I really care about picture quality, so Chromecast offers the cheapest way to get SuperHD Netflix on my TV. If I wasn't bothered about the quality, I'd just connect my tablet with a cable whenever I wanted to watch something.
EarlyMon said:
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting service and a good idea....
Unfortunately $2 per SD conversion of DVD or $5 to HD is a bit too pricey considering how I have the equipment to rip my own DVD (I have more than 3000 titles in my collection), do the Upconvert and even rip the subtitles to put into an MKV.
But this service will do well because of the sheer number of people who do not have the capability to do that and the ease of use.
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?
Asphyx said:
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The second one, so far as I know.
And if you just enter your digital copy information that works too.
My son-in-law does that but I haven't asked him about the details - he's very happy with the service though.
It's a great Idea....
I have a similar validation system I use....
If I own it already on disc then I feel I have the right to download it if I choose...I paid them their cut so no Guilt involved.
LOL
Similar but I don't pay the conversion fee!
I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.
EarlyMon said:
I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah unfortunately I live in a very rural area and Cable and Internet outages are common (all the damn trees!)
So when that happens I really have no other recourse than to use whatever is on my Media server to entertain myself...
I went out and invested in a good NAS with Raid that holds 16Tb worth of drives (don't get full16Tbs with Raid though...I may even need to double that soon as I'm running out of space).
My Media Server is my HTPC so I can simply replace that unit if it craps out and just re-install the server software and map the drives.
Been checking out that Chromecast store app...a Lot of stuff in there I didn't know about...
Hi everyone!
After I found out that not only Chromecast 4k but also Sony Android TVs with Chromecast-Built-In would downscale every static content to FullHD or even 720p (to let the TV upscale this again) I wonder if maybe te new Chromecast (with Google TV) can cast Fotos to UHD TVs in adequate resolution. Haven't found anything on the net as well as herein.
Any other idea to cast from mobile android devices to a TV (not limited to android) in high tesolution is welcome of course.
Finally found this in the google support forum and the answer disappointinly is NO
Google Nest Community
support.google.com
Anyone who is interested in this topic can upvote it there.
I really wonder what is the technical limitation for this in the year 2021
There is no technical reason why it can't display high resolution images. My bet is that their stupid fancy slide transitions don't work well at high resolutions. Try using something BESIDES google photos. You probably shouldn't be using that software anyway, since it steals all your data and uploads it to google -- pretty creepy if you ask me, just imagine how you'd feel if somebody YOU KNOW had software on your phone that gave them access to all your data!
Google Photos is just the most prominent example, as one might expect that google products should work together.
And I am not aware of any other cloud based app that can cast photos via Chromecast. The only solution seems to be via the Photoguru-App, but this just works with FireTV and NVidia Shield and not with chomecast.
I am using Google Photos for certain purposes only, but rest assured that I'm on my way of finding a differend solution for this, too.