Related
I have a home theater PC via Windows Media Center. It has Netflix built in. We watch streaming on it all the time. I'm very happy with the picture quality.
But... The quality of Netflix via Chromecast is stunning! Truly stunning! It rivals Bluray. I was blown away by it. Good job Google and Netflix.
believe the same SoC chip(cpu, gpu), or it's cousins (Marvell 88DE3010), are in 3D bluray players too
paperWastage said:
believe the same SoC chip(cpu, gpu), or it's cousins (Marvell 88DE3010), are in 3D bluray players too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's possible. But, at the Google announcement, they said that this was the first implementation of 1080p for Netflix.
TabGuy said:
It's possible. But, at the Google announcement, they said that this was the first implementation of 1080p for Netflix.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not exactly true
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/08/netflix-super-hd-3d-streaming/
In my area Time Warner Cable has blacked out CBS... so today I can't watch the US Open games being televised by CBS. Chromecast to the rescue... just go to the US Open Live Streaming site and cast it to your TV.
Oh my it is so choppy. I have a pretty new router that I bought last year and 20 mbps internet yet it's really broken up. I'm the only one using the internet, too. When I just stream it on my computer monitor it's amazingly HD with no problems at all.
That being said CBS is back on Time Warner anyway so it's all good. It would have been funny especially seeing the TWC logo all over the US open as they're a sponsor, yet TWC wouldn't have been able to show the US Open for their customers.
yahoowizard said:
Oh my it is so choppy. I have a pretty new router that I bought last year and 20 mbps internet yet it's really broken up. I'm the only one using the internet, too. When I just stream it on my computer monitor it's amazingly HD with no problems at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The limitation is caused by the CPU of your computer not your internet speed. It is hard to really have a smooth experience with video on the Chromecast using screen casting no matter what CPU you use.
Well my CPU is pretty good. My computer's just a little bit over five years old but it's still a good custom built gaming computer, so I doubt that's the issue.
yahoowizard said:
Well my CPU is pretty good. My computer's just a little bit over five years old but it's still a good custom built gaming computer, so I doubt that's the issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is absolutely the issue. Search the threads in this forum. It is having to transcode in realtime which is very difficult to do. That is why screen casting will never be smooth.
The Apple TV seems to do it really well, and I'm not sure how far it is specs wise but it doesn't seem like that much. Although I'm sure the Apple TV tries to steal a lot of the bandwidth in exchange for amazing quality. We have an Apple TV here and the mirroring is just wonderful but of course not much I can do with my phone on it. Chromecast can't seem to handle the scrolling on webpages perfectly yet while the Apple TV shows stuff like Fruit Ninja with absolutely no lag. Hopefully it's just a software issue that gets resolved soon.
I think it's the same with FaceTime as well with the large bandwidth take but the quality on that is amazing as well. Haven't really seen anything to match the quality of that, even when it's something like Tango or Skype or Hangouts on super fast internet vs. Facetime on ****ty internet, Facetime seems to do better. And it's not just a matter of better, it's like super high frames per second and HD quality as though playing a video on Youtube or something.
Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app
Well you can't tab cast from your phone. It streams directly from the internet and doesn't display mirror. So it will stream whatever the source content and your TV resolutions are.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
PortalOfGaming said:
Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quad HD? Like UltraHD (3840x2160)?
Casting local media directly (via Avia, RealPlayer Cloud, or Allcast for rooted Chromecasts) is as-is, no conversion of the media happens, and Chromecast will play the media if it is capable of decoding it.
I don't think Chromecast can decode UltraHD as it tends to have trouble with 1080p and high (>10 Mbps) bitrates, but I'm not 100% on that. I can use AllCast to send a 1080p video I shot on my phone, but there's a little bit of pause now and then.
As far as known issues, some old TVs that report 1080p support but don't actually display correctly have trouble. Some Yamaha receivers are having some trouble with the latest firmware.
Most other issues are either in progress or have already been taken care of via updates on the application side.
A tiny number of reports of Chromecasts being "bricked" but probably normal or better for the number of Chromecasts out in the wild.
There is a phone with QuadHD resolution?!??!??!??!? LOL
There is a lot of Misinformation regarding resolution in the Phone business I assure you...
Cameras that say they shoot 1080P in most cases don't. The Chip (CMOS for the most part) does not have a REAL 1080P resolution. What it does is take the native resolution of the camera (usually much lower) and SAVE THE FILE in 1080P by simply upconverting it.
And Upconverting doesn't ADD resolution or Quality it just doubles the size of each pixel to fill in all the pixels of the higher resolution.
You may find a phone or Camera that says it supports 4K but in truth it is not a REAL 4K! The File will read and display on a 4K device but your not really getting the FULL RESOLUTION a 4K video has when captured natively in a TRUE 4K.
The Chips that receive the image from the lens are not large enough to do a true 4K. It is merely upconverted when saved to that format.
Like taking a single pixel and repeating it 3 more time to make a pixel 4 times the size of the original where in a REAL 4K each pixel can be different and rarely are the same (maybe similar but not the same)
Now these chips are improving by leaps and bounds so in time they may even do these resolutions for real...But by then we will also have things like 16K because the bigger cameras with have 3/4" and 1' CCDs or CMOS' will advance from the technology as well.
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
I have good internet, so I don't worry about that.
Thank you all for your answers, I'm going to buy a chromecast when I come home.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.
PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see qHD from the computer realm. Thanks for teaching me something new! :good:
I have some VGA (640x480) videos and from Avia they play picture-boxed (black border on all sides, because Avia does not alter the video). So it will likely depend on what application you use and what Chromecast decides to do in terms of scaling, if it has any (I don't know).
I think the biggest reason it can't do 1080p natively is because it's wireless G. I can only hope Google decides to release another chromecast or something else like it with wireless AC.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2
It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
bhiga said:
It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-an-awesome-35-hdmi-dongle/2
Edit - My Samsung UN46F6300 is also terrible at streaming HD content over it's Wi-Fi (also 2.4GHz), but connecting the tv's Ethernet to my WD wireless AC bridge alleviates all this.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2
Yes the 2.4 GHz band is not optimal as it's crowded but latency issues aside, it's fine.
The hardware still matters because most hardwareand appliance-oriented decoders have limits to the maximum bitrate it can decode due to buffer and memory limits.
It's much different to more general CPUs which can allocate more memory and have more CPU power to adjust.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
Jocelyn said:
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm pretty sure GPlay does some transcoding but not 100% sure. In any case If the unit is having issues playing the video over 2.4Ghz the issue is really the Video Bitrate needs to be lowered enough to stream without issue. In the end no one is getting full HD 1080P on any device over ANY wired or wireless network because Full HD uncompressed has a Bitrate of over 1.49 Gbps. Far beyond standard Ethernet standards which is why we use Fiber Optic for broadcast and even then we compress the hell out of it before you ever see it.
So pretty much all HD we are playing is not really full HD.
Can you play 1080P locally?
PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahhh no Problem...You meant quarterHD actually...
You wouldn't have confused us if NHK and a Consortium hadn't actually invented QuadHD for Broadcast! bhiga and I both work in broadcast and were recently talking about it.
Well, I forgot that it was Quarter HD, but it's okay now, since I have aleardy ordered it. Again, thanks for your help guys.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
AleT said:
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
bhiga said:
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
AleT said:
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see. Then you might be okay, though it's always nice to have more "headroom."
Definitely make sure you have 4 GB or more RAM and of course 64-bit Windows, rather than 32-bit.
Best if the hardware can provide hardware acceleration for Flash as well.
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Raw GHz isn't really the best measure of performance anyway. The i5 notebook will definitely be good enough for 480p, not sure about HD. Also Windows 8.1 supports wireless screen sharing so if you can find an affordable receiver you'd get smoother results that way.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
DJames1 said:
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The stuttering with Tab Casting has more to do with the method they are using to stream as it does the power of the machine doing the streaming...
Tab Casting is (I Think it is anyway) using an M-JPEG to stream to the CCast...
Which is just what it sounds like sending JPG frames in series like it's some sort of Webcam.
I am having some people over soon.
I have a Chromecast (v2) and all of the guests will have iOS/Android phones.
Are there any Chromecast games for 6-8 players?
Interesting concept. I think, such games would be possible on a Windows or Linux system attached to a big tv. The game server also performs as the sole display, and the phones serve as wifi game pads. The CC is much too limited for this, but does such already exist?
Checkout Scrabble if it's what you're looking for.
Though i was thinking same when playing motion tennis, that is there any 2 player game.