Related
I'm after a piece of software that will capture my desktop, and convert the output to a live embedded flash output, preferably as a nice and simple http://ipaddress kind of thing.
I can find hundreds that will record to a swf file, and also a handful that will output as an ASX stream, but neither of these do what I require.
The reason?
We have a video monitoring system at work that displays some analogue cameras on a Windows XP PC. Using VNC or Remote Desktop is too slow, so I had the thought of making it basically produce a live webcast using a flash interface for simplicity as it could be viewed via a browser.
Any ideas?
Not sure at all, never tried this, but I think Pirillo has been reviewing/recommending various live capture apps recently. Check out his sites perhaps...
V
VLC supports streaming. I wonder if that might work for you. I guess it depends on whether the video technology used is propriety or not.
Netrunner2K said:
VLC supports streaming. I wonder if that might work for you. I guess it depends on whether the video technology used is propriety or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, but VLC is a player, not an encoder.
VJ, not sure who you mean, is this a member here, or a specific site you have seen?
If this is a surveilence system, then you wouldn't need an encoder as that is handled on the fly by the unit itself. Many units also do streaming of the video data as well. So if the data stream format is industry standard, then there are many different viewers that can work, however this depends heavily on the make/model of the unit as many companies like to make their stuff propriety so that only their stuff works with the equipment.
I have a contractor friend of mine that specializes in video/audio surveilence so we get to play with alot of different technologies as they emerge onto the market.
What I would do is research the make and model of the unit to see how open their technology is. Some companies even offer API packages so you can write your own apps to interface their equipment.
Good Luck!
Netrunner2K said:
If this is a surveilence system, then you wouldn't need an encoder as that is handled on the fly by the unit itself. Many units also do streaming of the video data as well. So if the data stream format is industry standard, then there are many different viewers that can work, however this depends heavily on the make/model of the unit as many companies like to make their stuff propriety so that only their stuff works with the equipment.
I have a contractor friend of mine that specializes in video/audio surveilence so we get to play with alot of different technologies as they emerge onto the market.
What I would do is research the make and model of the unit to see how open their technology is. Some companies even offer API packages so you can write your own apps to interface their equipment.
Good Luck!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'll have to trust that I know what I'm doing on this.
The video into the unit is analogue.
The unit itself has no standard streaming output as it requires a bespoke application.
I have successfully tested a desktop capture utility that streams directly to ASX, but streaming video will not go through our web interface to applications from the outside world, however flash embedded in a web page should.
I just need a similar application that encodes a desktop output to flash.
Just a simple live desktop capture, I am not talking about something that interfaces with camera outputs etc.
both me and my friend are getting
YouTube "this video cannot be played" on some videos
What is causing this? is there a fix?
I can supply links to a video that doesn't play
Any ideas
Cheers
That may be due to your region..some YouTube videos are not allowed in some countries due to copywrite laws or censorship. If the same thing is happening on two different phones, likely it is not your phone that is the problem.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
rschenck said:
That may be due to your region..some YouTube videos are not allowed in some countries due to copywrite laws or censorship. If the same thing is happening on two different phones, likely it is not your phone that is the problem.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its not a region thing, the video play on the pc but not android
Link or search term?
its not my taste but here is a link
http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4md6a223m...e.com/watch?v=pa14VNsdSYM&v=pa14VNsdSYM&gl=GB
mostly my friends choice of pop music is not allowed
This is an option that YouTube gives content uploaders when posting videos. It's a specific option that goes some thing like "Disallow viewing content on mobile devices"
The reason this is done is because ads can't be played on Youtube mobile (whether browser or app) so they don't want to give you access to the video. The fact that it's mostly pop music makes sense, because recording labels and such will want to monetize their content, and mobile users represent a revenue loss.
The only way around it is to view the video through your browser while switched to a desktop user-agent.
krazykipa said:
This is an option that YouTube gives content uploaders when posting videos. It's a specific option that goes some thing like "Disallow viewing content on mobile devices"
The reason this is done is because ads can't be played on Youtube mobile (whether browser or app) so they don't want to give you access to the video. The fact that it's mostly pop music makes sense, because recording labels and such will want to monetize their content, and mobile users represent a revenue loss.
The only way around it is to view the video through your browser while switched to a desktop user-agent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheers
I told my friend it probably had to do with 'advertising revenue' and 'control'.
Is there an easy way for her to view these videos? (or should i tell her to get a better taste in music )
Like I said, basically the only way is to watch it through "desktop Youtube".
Since we have Flash support, you can download an alternate browser like Dolphin Browser that lets you switch user agents and view the video from the full site.
There are also hacked browser.apk's out there with stuff like built-in user agent switching, 8 tabs etc.
Hope that helped.
had this problem works now
Current Version:2.2
Requires Android:1.6 and up
Size:3.4MB
V2.2 update:
- Android 3.0 is supported
- Reverse landscape on Android 2.3 and higher is supported
- Other bugfixes
SPB TV – Stay Tuned On the Go!
Use SPB TV to watch live and video-on-demand TV channels on your device. You can use a 3G or Wi-Fi connection. More than 150+ channels from 20+ countries. No subscription fee!
Android Developer Challenge winner in Media category. More than 4 million subscribers all around the world.
SPB TV Features:
A wide selection of public TV channels
Quick channel preview
Integrated TV guide
Fast channels launch and switching
Picture-in-picture mode
Video-on-demand
Onscreen controls
Please rate the app if you like it. If you have any questions or comments, please email us at [email protected].
User beware! This thing requires a LOT of weird permissions. Lots of dubious reviews from others.
No longer sent from my BlackBerry.
Captain Zero said:
User beware! This thing requires a LOT of weird permissions. Lots of dubious reviews from others.
No longer sent from my BlackBerry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm using, and everything is very normal and good!
(Appz full)
yeah working fine on my htc wildfire guys
Hey im new to this chromecast. I can see my chrome browser on the pc but not on android, how can I do that? Sijce here are very experienced users oj chromecast can someone describe the full working potentials this device has?
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
You cant do squat with Chrome on Android yet for some odd reason.
Tab casting from Chrome uses the host CPU to re-encode the video and stream it to the Chromecast on-the-fly. Tablet and phone CPUs don't have enough processing power. That's why there's no Chromecast extension for Chrome on your portable device.
Well that sucks bc there is possibilities with this chromecast. I downloaded the allcast and obviously updated my google services. I cast a picture and it doesnt show normal, shows rotated to the left. Can you cast from the gallery vids and photos?
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
The man problem is the fact that Android Chrome does not support Chrome Apps and Extensions.
Something I'm told Google is working on...
Asphyx said:
The man problem is the fact that Android Chrome does not support Chrome Apps and Extensions.
Something I'm told Google is working on...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea they better be working on it, this has been out couple months now they need to update more
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
Google is working on a way to mirror your android screen to the chromecast and we know this because on kitkat roms theres an option to cast screen but isn't quite working yet. Its only been coded in but thats it.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
tooblackforjack said:
Google is working on a way to mirror your android screen to the chromecast and we know this because on kitkat roms theres an option to cast screen but isn't quite working yet. Its only been coded in but thats it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Supported by HTC and Samsung since 2012 with their private dongles.
Not new, sorry.
EarlyMon said:
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Supported by HTC and Samsung since 2012 with their private dongles.
Not new, sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah ik, i was just informing in case he didn't know sorry.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
EarlyMon said:
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but Google has renamed it to Cast Screen. Clearly, they will be adding support for casting to Chromecasts directly inside of Android. Otherwise, renaming it to match the Chromecast nomenclature makes no sense.
bozzykid said:
Yes, but Google has renamed it to Cast Screen. Clearly, they will be adding support for casting to Chromecasts directly inside of Android. Otherwise, renaming it to match the Chromecast nomenclature makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because MiraCAST isn't confusing enough?
I'm aware that a number of blogs not familiar with Miracast are spreading that rumor. I think it's wishful thinking but we'll see, won't we?
http://www.howtogeek.com/177145/wir...ed-airplay-miracast-widi-chromecast-and-dlna/
http://readwrite.com/2013/11/07/android-kitkat-developers-users
A side note, Android 4.4 KitKat devices can now be certified by the Wi-Fi alliance as being Miracast compatible. That is a big step for Android in being able to stream content from a device to a television by supporting more streaming standards. Now only if the Chromecast supported Miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.androidpolice.com/tags/miracast/
So, you believe that WiFi Direct is coming to the existing Chromecast?
Or that in addition to Miracast, they'll be providing a second protocol for phones, with a server (like Koush did)? And people will be able to figure out the two casting options on their devices?
I think that it's far more likely that rather than put both protocols on a phone or into the existing Chromecast, it's more likely that DIAL support plus Miracast *might* appear in a Chromecast 2.
Miracast dongles already exist, it's February and the SDK libraries still aren't out, and in July, Chromecast will be a year old.
Apple TV costs $100 with this feature, a Belkin Miracast dongle is $80, an HTC Media Link HD is $100, the Samsung Allshare Cast Hub was a hundred, is $65 on Amazon now.
It's possible that Google is going to pump this in to the existing Chromecast for the faithful for free, but I'm just not feeling it.
Either way, so far KitKat includes Miracast, not DIAL.
EarlyMon said:
Or that in addition to Miracast, they'll be providing a second protocol for phones, with a server (like Koush did)? And people will be able to figure out the two casting options on their devices?
I think that it's far more likely that rather than put both protocols on a phone or into the existing Chromecast, it's more likely that DIAL support plus Miracast *might* appear in a Chromecast 2.
...
It's possible that Google is going to pump this in to the existing Chromecast for the faithful for free, but I'm just not feeling it.
Either way, so far KitKat includes Miracast, not DIAL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First part:
Since it's (Android) device mirroring functions appear to be in the SDK, but are limited only to OEM developers, my best-guess is that what we'll see is any Chromecast device mirroring will have to be "cooked" into a ROM rather than a loose bit (makes sense - that's how Samsung's AllShare Cast works too).
Hopefully the UX engineers win and make it so the Screen Mirroring option at least combines Google Cast and Miracast device options together, rather than having separate options for Screen Mirroring (Miracast) and Screen Mirroring (Google Cast).
Second part:
Yeah, not going to hold my breath. As I keep saying, screen mirroring is not the core competency of Chromecast.
bhiga said:
First part:
Since it's (Android) device mirroring functions appear to be in the SDK, but are limited only to OEM developers, my best-guess is that what we'll see is any Chromecast device mirroring will have to be "cooked" into a ROM rather than a loose bit (makes sense - that's how Samsung's AllShare Cast works too).
Hopefully the UX engineers win and make it so the Screen Mirroring option at least combines Google Cast and Miracast device options together, rather than having separate options for Screen Mirroring (Miracast) and Screen Mirroring (Google Cast).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both together sounds like a bit much, but it's possible.
Samsung is likely going their own way.
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-an...ultiscreen-and-overlay-capabilities-28303309/
Second part:
Yeah, not going to hold my breath. As I keep saying, screen mirroring is not the core competency of Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree.
If you ask me any attempt to make CCast work like a Miracast would be a big waste, Even a downgrade!
No need for Direct Connection for Mirroring as Mirror over IP is far more flexible and less problematical. Not to mention requires no special software support like Miracast does. If they really wanted Miracast type direct mirroring all it would take is some additions to the rom cause hardware wise, the CCast has everything it needs
It may not be part of why the CCast was developed but I don't see Google being as smart as they are leaving that market open to Miracast dongles when they know full well the only thing inhibiting CCast from doing it (and better) is their lack of developing an App that does it for Mobile...
As for the Casting support in the SDK for OEM use I suspect that is more generic in nature and just an exposure of the display system to support Miracast, Perhaps CCast Mirroring and any other 2nd screen tech that comes down the pipe.
I think mirroring feature is a bit overrated myself, it's good for an audience but not for an operator's use.
It's easier to do than what CCast is trying to do because there is no need for a control protocol...Just a simple transcoder for Video and Audio the rest is all done on the Master Display device.
As for that Samsung option I don't expect it to take off due to proprietary concerns. It's meant for Samsung SmartTVs and I bet LG and Sony won't support it. Samsung would be better off building that capability directly into the TV itself.
DIAL is still in its infancy and I expect the protocol to expand as support and adoption of it grows...
Whatever lessons they learned from Chromecast I expect to be addressed whenever they get around to making the second gen CCast.
Wired Networking or at minimum 5Ghz Wireless support is to be expected as would a more robust Video playback Compatibility.
It's not likely that any app that adds CCast support is going to remove it in the future which means as the Apps list grows so too does the chance we have of seeing this supported without the need for a dongle at all.
TV over the Web will work the way it was supposed to and remove the biggest hurdle to achieving full IPTV to date...
The Navigation and Channel Guide no one could figure out how to do....
And who knew the Web Browser was the answer all along.
Samsung is still the largest supplier of flat screen TVs in North America, is it not?
Besides, they've never been shy about adding interfaces to support the future. I have a Samsung TV with a specialized iPod interface as proof. (And I believe that the article did say clearly that Samsung was going to build the new casting into their TVs.)
And none of the TV makers think twice about adding fragmenting features, and Samsung certainly doesn't for their mobile devices.
As for the claim that it's just about making a mobile app and declaring victory for screen casting, you might want to review the API changes that have been evolving for months.
Doing that without library support and not differentiating DRM vs non-DRM cast calls may seem simple to you but it doesn't to me.
Last published, Netflix and YouTube accounted for over 50% of North American broadband traffic.
Screen casting may be an emerging market, or it could just be a flash in the pan.
EarlyMon said:
Samsung is still the largest supplier of flat screen TVs in North America, is it not?
Besides, they've never been shy about adding interfaces to support the future. I have a Samsung TV with a specialized iPod interface as proof. (And I believe that the article did say clearly that Samsung was going to build the new casting into their TVs.)
And none of the TV makers think twice about adding fragmenting features, and Samsung certainly doesn't for their mobile devices.
As for the claim that it's just about making a mobile app and declaring victory for screen casting, you might want to review the API changes that have been evolving for months.
Doing that without library support and not differentiating DRM vs non-DRM cast calls may seem simple to you but it doesn't to me.
Last published, Netflix and YouTube accounted for over 50% of North American broadband traffic.
Screen casting may be an emerging market, or it could just be a flash in the pan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I guess Samsung is the largest supplier of Flat Screens in NA just like Apple is the biggest supplier of Smart Phones in NA...
Until you realize combine all the NOT Samsung Models into an US vs THEM and they are not the Majority by any means...Same with Apple vs Android as opposed to Apple vs Samsung itself.
As for the DRM you forget that DIAL doesn't care and leaves using or not using up to the content provider. It's there if you want it and if not you only have to support the DIscover and Launch capabilities.
Is Sony (who owns a majority of content compared to Samsung) going to cut out DIAL for Samsung's proprietary system?
Doubtful!
And since the CCast and DIAL supports ANY TV with HDMI input it has a far better chance of being adopted as a standard than Samsung's device is.
IMO most of the current desire for screencasting is really a "backup plan" for content that is currently not supported via DIAL. "___ isn't supported so I want to mirror my screen/tab."
So the mainstream correct solution would be to get the desired content providers on-board with Google Cast.
That would leave non-"canned" content for screen mirroring (games in a second screen model, general browsing, presentations, Skype, etc).
I'd love to see a native Skype for Chromecast using the microphone and controls on my tablet/phone with video on the TV but keeping it in sync might be nontrivial engineering on the Skype end.
Asphyx said:
As for the DRM you forget that DIAL doesn't care and leaves using or not using up to the content provider. It's there if you want it and if not you only have to support the DIscover and Launch capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can only invite you, again, to look at the actual casting API rather than rely on assumptions.
It's NOT the same as that last July and it absolutely, positively does recognize casting DRM content.
Start here -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/apps-dev/emlKA4C-c90
And then Google for what's happened since, along with Koush's commentaries.
Is Sony (who owns a majority of content compared to Samsung) going to cut out DIAL for Samsung's proprietary system?
Doubtful!
And since the CCast and DIAL supports ANY TV with HDMI input it has a far better chance of being adopted as a standard than Samsung's device is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the article to discover that Samsung is using a superset of DIAL and support by Sony, LG, and Panasonic TV sets is expected?
---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------
bhiga said:
IMO most of the current desire for screencasting is really a "backup plan" for content that is currently not supported via DIAL. "___ isn't supported so I want to mirror my screen/tab."
So the mainstream correct solution would be to get the desired content providers on-board with Google Cast.
That would leave non-"canned" content for screen mirroring (games in a second screen model, general browsing, presentations, Skype, etc).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you checked out what Vbukit is planning on supporting with Chromecast?
Pretty interesting, I think.
Not sure about getting Skype sorted out.
It seems like every time Skype updates, it's a step backwards, but that's just my off-topic opinion.
EarlyMon said:
Have you checked out what Vbukit is planning on supporting with Chromecast?
Pretty interesting, I think.
Not sure about getting Skype sorted out.
It seems like every time Skype updates, it's a step backwards, but that's just my off-topic opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, Vbukit is a little rough around the edges, but I can definitely see it being useful for presenters and educators especially.
Agree with you on Skype...
Back on-topic, there isn't a lot of technical copyright/DRM concern regarding casting anything you see on the screen - after all, if you can see it on the screen, you've seen it already. It's just that the legal types are not technical, highly likely to make crazy conclusions and assumptions, and get paid no matter what they do - so it's in their best interest to make issue of little things. I've personally seen warnings from the copyright hunters complete with ISP traces down to the router endpoint too, so they are watching and waiting to pounce.
I still hope an optimized device mirroring comes as something deeper within the Android OS itself.
Something akin to RemoteX in the Windows space, which is a "remote render" or offload of the graphic drawing functions. Anything that's not reliant upon a local bitmap could be rendered on Chromecast, rather than sent as large/inefficient bitmap data or CPU-intensive compressed data. That would make some "twitchy" games playable, especially if Chromecast has enough memory/storage to cache bitmaps that it does end up needing. Full-screen video, of course, doesn't benefit, nor does typical FPS games since the entirety of the screen is being updated with bitmaps.
For fun, I played a video on my phone and watched it on my computer (no audio) via TeamViewer. It took me back to the early 90's.
We've waited for apps and other optimized content this long, let's see what Google delivers.
Content providers have been successfully inhibiting HDMI and MHL output from their apps running on Android devices.
I believe that the casting API changes may have them in mind, but that's pure conjecture on my part.
I think it's ridiculous but so long as people check the boxes and agree to the terms of service, they're free to enforce it.
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...