Related
- Idea: Want to play Mobile Games on my big HD TV (has no DLNA), only solution so far: MHL Cable, but this is a pain in the a s s you need a MHL Adapter, a Charging Cable and a 5 meter HDMI Cable. b*tch please. that's no fun.
- Problem: TV has no DLNA function where i could mirror the Mobile Phone screen, else it would be solved.
Is there a Solution?
my PC is connected with DVI-HDMI to the HD TV, so if i could make my PC work like a DLNA Receiver with VLC Player or something, maybe i could get the Xperia Z find my PC in the LAN as DLNA device and stream the Xperia Screen (Games, Videos) to the PC VLC Player and watch it on my TV then like i play games on my PC.
Is this possible and how ?
DLNA will not enable you to play games on your tv. It will allow the playback of media.
You need something to mirror the phone image. Like MirrorLink. Which isn't available yet.
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk HD
ok, that's what i thought in the first place.
i contacted the sony support today and they told me that i can not play games from my phone on my older sony bravia tv without a MHL Adapter Cable (Micro USB to HDMI), but with a newer DLAN TV (yes DLAN, he thought it is correct like this, in the end i told him it's called DLNA).
that's where my thoughts came from, that a pc may also be able to view the screen picture and act as a DLNA Receiver like the newer DLNA TVs.
It's not DLNA, it's Miracast. Currently no solution to have your computer act as receiver exists, but it is theoretically possible on any device with WiFi and WiFi Direct.
Remember though that wireless mirroring doesn't work simultaneously with regular WiFi and has over a second delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Ambroos said:
It's not DLNA, it's Miracast. Currently no solution to have your computer act as receiver exists, but it is theoretically possible on any device with WiFi and WiFi Direct.
Remember though that wireless mirroring doesn't work simultaneously with regular WiFi and has over a second delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could play limited media through your laptops DLNA server from the phone, just select your computer from the throw settings. But of course you will have to have the computer connected to the TV.
One scond delay over wifi, dude you need a new router or network config, there is a delay, but I would suggest it shouldn't be one second, this would be due to the connected device rendering the image for display not WIFI lag.
Yes as for using your tv for what you are asking MHL is really your only option
danw_oz said:
You could play limited media through your laptops DLNA server from the phone, just select your computer from the throw settings. But of course you will have to have the computer connected to the TV.
One scond delay over wifi, dude you need a new router or network config, there is a delay, but I would suggest it shouldn't be one second, this would be due to the connected device rendering the image for display not WIFI lag.
Yes as for using your tv for what you are asking MHL is really your only option
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He asked about mirroring, not streaming. Streaming music or movies to your pc is easy, I just use foobar for that (music only).
Miracast doesn't use your router at all, it's WiFi Direct which means it goes directly from your phone to the receiving device. You obviously haven't tried it because there really is quite some delay. Your phone has to compress the display data on the fly, transmit it and then the receiver needs to decode it. Don't expect that too be to fast. Check some YouTube videos and you'll see there is a delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Ambroos said:
He asked about mirroring, not streaming. Streaming music or movies to your pc is easy, I just use foobar for that (music only).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep and what do you think DLNA is??? Only streaming of various media types. So the answer is clearly NO. That was his question. And that is what I told him
Ambroos said:
Miracast doesn't use your router at all, it's WiFi Direct which means it goes directly from your phone to the receiving device. You obviously haven't tried it because there really is quite some delay. Your phone has to compress the display data on the fly, transmit it and then the receiver needs to decode it. Don't expect that too be to fast. Check some YouTube videos and you'll see there is a delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I wasn't referring to WIFI direct nor miracast, and neither were you in your quote stating about the over one second delay, well at least you didn't make that clear. I was referring to using wifi to mirror my screen on my Sony TV, and I state that quite clearly.
You ovbiously got out of the wrong side of the bed
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
For me, "casting a tab" is why I choose chromecast. With "casting a tab", I could continue use my computer while my son watching his favorite cartoon on TV.
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
GeekEric said:
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there are some limitations with Miracast..bhiga mentioned one but to me the most important is the fact that the device you want to stream from MUST support Miracast. Not all do!
I have a Miracast Dongle (that also has a DLNA mode I can switch it to) and I could not get it to work with any of my devices or PCs.
Currently only Higher versions of Android and Win8 supports Miracast natively (although t might work with Win7 if you have a WiFi card).
If your device supports it and your only interested in streaming ON DEVICE content then Miracast might be the better option for those who want to stream to Hotel TVs since it does not require AP access to stream to it as it is a direct connection.
One thing is for certain...The DIAL Miracast wars have begun! LOL
bhiga said:
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
GeekEric said:
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Asphyx said:
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information.
GeekEric said:
Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Xperia-Ray said:
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it is like aVia in that the stream is completely dependent on the device that starts the stream.
It has to have a DLNA mode to get around that (My Dongle does) In that case you can send content to it in some cases without having to rely on the Device you used to send it.
This is the big innovation of CCast. It is sort of a happy balance between the Miracast model (direct stream) and Target based streaming methods (like DLNA).
Unfortunately for now Google has not seen fit to incorporate a pure DLNA player into the ROM.
If they ever do and have the CCast identify itself as a DLNA target when idle, it would complete the unit IMO.
Then you wouldn't be limited to playing content from apps that have specifically added CCast support, You could remote DLNA servers to send content directly as well.
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
siratfus said:
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes Miracast is not fully supported by all units and Operating systems....
You need Windows8 to use it on a PC....
You need 4.2+ to use it on Android and even then it still needs to be baked into the ROm to work. I have 4.2 on my Xoom and no Miracast support.
This is why I say the CCast is better. Will work with any device provided the software you run supports it.
Changes the whole environment from a Hardware requirement to a Software requirement.
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
jsdecker10 said:
But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but downside is you're tied to the device being mirrored and you're using a bunch of network bandwidth because the video is going to your device then from there to the dongle. However, if the implementation is good then it can adapt by adjusting quality and/or framerate.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
jsdecker10 said:
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
I can only imagine how bad that ESPN feed would be when you have Miracast sucking down all that wireless bandwidth.
siratfus said:
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything you said is very true and it's just the "nature of the beast," that of Miracast mirroring, that is. It would be a very nice feature to have in some circumstances, but at the same time, I understand that in order to have such a luxury as "screen-mirroring," such that is available with the Miracast technology, one must also understand that there will be those drawbacks that you mentioned. Unfortunately, in this world that we live in, it's hard "to have your cake and eat it (too)." I sooooooo wish that there was such a fairly efficient way to effectively and natively(built into Android) mirror an Android device's screen to any "Chromecast-enabled" TV. Thank goodness for all the "super-brilliant" minds out there and especially for those with the present & future of Android development in mind because all of our "hopes and dreams" of such an efficient(Errrrrrrr...maybe I should say "more efficient?") screen-mirroring technology may not necessarily be all for naught. This future Chromecast potential that could one day "...truly be the one dongle to rule them all!" isn't even really all that far from coming to fruition because according to Koushik Dutta's findings just a few weeks ago, quoting directly from his Google+ stream, he said...
"From the patches I see in 4.4.1, they'll[Google] be adding Android mirroring to Chromecast very soon.
Unfortunately that API is not available to anyone but Google and the OEM. Similar solutions to different hardware can't be built (Apple TV, etc). Kinda bull****."
-Koushik Dutta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Also, Richard Lawler from the long-standing & well-known tech news, reviews, and opinion outlet "Engadget" also elaborated on Mr. Dutta's findings in his column at the following link.... "Android 4.4.1 shows signs that mirroring to Chromecast is coming soon"
...Sooooooo, with that in mind, I trust Koushik's findings and I'm going to try to be somewhat optimistic about the future of this device...aside from the fact that it WILL add compatibility with more apps in the future, I'm specifically being hopeful of Chromecast gaining more types of functionality, aside from what we're used to seeing from its normal everyday usage. Who knows when that will be though? Hopefully, it'll be much sooner than later, but being that this is a Google product, I'm crossing my fingers, but I'm definitely not holding my breath! lol :good::good:
Well we already know the device will do Mirroring as it does that with the Chrome Ext.
Just a matter of making an App to do it and getting it added to the Whitelist which is probably the only thing stopping Koush from implementing his CCast support back into All Cast.
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Codecobalt,
The main benefit is convenience. There's something just very natural about selecting content from your phone and then having it play on the TV - with how the chromecast connects it's actually the device that creates the connection to the provider and as such there shouldn't be any increased bandwidth usage (only control information is sent via your phone in most cases - excepting applications that pass your data via external services).
If you wish to use a VPN you may have to mod your router however you can normally just add a route or some mechanism to stop it's connection to google DNS servers which will force the device to fall back to locally defined DNS servers if that helps. If you require assistance with the whole router thing let me know (as I've done many of them in many different ways).
Again as I said, the main reason for the device is convienience - I personally although being a tech head don't like the idea of having to launch movies with a mouse and keyboard off a laptop and all the rigmarole that comes with it (since purchasing chromecasts I haven't used my local movie stash in around 3 months).
Well that's my speel about it, if you have any specific requests please do not hesitate to ask and I hope you grow to love the device as much as I do.
I have no real gripes about it, I just don't see the real benefit to me, but I'm a laptop user who always has my laptop in front of me. I can understand though how you like the ability to use your android phone to launch videos wirelessly. I love to use my phone to launch youtube videos on my PS3.
It just seems like so long as you already have an HDMI out connection (and a laptop infront of you at all times) it's more universal to just dual monitor. for instance while casting "Watch ESPN" on my PC to TV, I can't fullscreen the video in the tab so that the video on my TV is fullscreen and still use the PC.. which kind of defeats the purpose. but with dual monitor I can have the video fullscreened on my TV while still using my laptop screen for everything else.
If it were a wireless option to dual monitor I would LOVE IT! but that's not what it was intended to be. I like it being wireless, but since I already have a 15' ethernet cable (just prefer it to wifi when available), usb to mini usb cable to charge my ps3 controller, and a wired headset for my ps3, one extra cable (the hdmi) running across the floor doesn't really bother me too much.
It's cool tech and very affordable for what it is, but it just left me wanting much more... thought I had to be missing the point.
For people without a ps3 or xbox or multiple TV's/chromecasts I can see the advantage.. just not for me I suppose.
I mostly wanted it so that I could watch my comcast xfinity online account (watch espn/2/u, FX, FXX, etc to stream live TV as an alternative to my netflix while I'm away from home and have a real screen. the ps3 doesn't have an xfinity app and I liked the idea of being able to stream only 1 specific tab. but then I have to use the zoom function on the tv to make it fullscreen and still use the laptop.
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from a tab (or the entire desktop) is not Chromecast's core use case. If that's all you're doing, then you are better off using HDMI or WiDi.
Chromecast's advantage, in addition to the sheer browsing/usage/convenience factor that @Kyonz mentioned, is "offloading" the playback duties. Chromecast's power usage is far less than your laptop, and you're free to take your laptop/phone/tablet and run if you need to while Chromecast continues to play. Someone else in the household can easily take over control of Chromecast from another device as well (there's some annoyance/bad to this too, but it's good as long as everyone plays nicely).
Likewise, I can move where media is being played back in most apps by pausing the playback, and resuming it on another Chromecast. Sadly, it won't turn off the TV though.
The previous paragraph deals solely with Chromecast-native applications, ie, not tab-casting or desktop-casting with the Cast extension from Chrome. Like I said in the beginning, if you're mainly trying to cast your computer's tab or screen, Chromecast is not the ideal solution.
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
also a nice way to upgrade an older non-smart TV to semi smart......
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
codecobalt said:
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all apps have the casting feature. Avia does YouTube does. ESPN and gallery do not
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
One of the Advantages is to be able to stream content to TVs in other rooms for Family and Friends without having to tie up your Laptop.
Truth is a Laptop has the fewest options available for using the CCast. None of the CCast compatible Apps will run on a Laptop and the only real benefit is you can launch a Netflix, Hulu and YouTube movie to the CCast from their Webpages.
So you can watch a movie on your TV while you do other things with the Laptop.
In the OP's case a secondary out from the computer doesn't "tie it up" much except for CPU and network usage. Well, launching a full screen game or something would likely jam things up.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
When using the hdmi out wont the graphics card be stressed also? Using the chromecast eliminates that altogether i thought...i use plex mostly for my entertainment system and debated getting a dedicated graphics card...in the end i chose casting between my devices because i have the bandwidth to support it and no desire to push my graphics card too hard if i chose to watch a 1080 trilogy....hows my logic?
That's reasonable logic too. Chromecast had hardware processing for the (limited) formats it supports, so it uses far less power than a laptop, perhaps even less power than a tablet because it's not also powering a screen. Personally I like the "start it up and let it go" aspect - no worries about what I do on my phone/tablet/computer once it's playing.
I have a lg smart TV with miracast and even though it shows my moto x as available it won't connect. The moto x does not show the TV available, miracast on the tv does the device search but the moto does not search for a device. Any one tried to use miracast?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
You should be searching devices from your phone. Go to settings display wireless display and try to search while miracast is enabled on your TV you're basically setting up a hotspot from phone to TV
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My smart tv is a bit finicky like that. Try going into the app you want on the tv and you should be presented with a way to connect to it through the browser. ie. when I use the youtube app to cast to my tv I have to scan a barcode first that is provided through the tv's youtube app interface before I can begin casting. Once I disconnect from my tv I have to do the process all over again. Maybe yours is the same way? Doesn't hurt to troubleshoot and see what options you have available.
I want to share my pictures or even video taken on the phone but there is not a share option to share with a TV available. I hoped to play on the phone and share via miracast to the TV. And not having a HDMI or mhl connection is a deal breaker for me ( thought miracast would make up for the lack of hdmi /mhl). What a waste of money this phone has been!, its a phone I can't recommend until a solution is available.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So there's no solution what a shame thought this was a great phone until now what a big let down a Motorola fail.
Note to self Buy a phone that has a HDMI !
re
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
ganasiff said:
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to search for the TV from your phone go look on YouTube maybe get really close and try again.
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred). However this Sony video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_QrYSEN2Vo implies you can play a video or picture on your phone, and have it show on your TV. I'll have to try that later today when I get a chance.
KidJoe said:
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
kenrw7 said:
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to look into it further. The Wireless display option on the X under App Drawer -> Settings -> Display -> Wireless Display... the learn more link takes me to -> http://help.motorola.com/hc/apps/wd/10/en-us/lm-wireless.html which states "To get started, you need a Miracast™ compatible HDTV or a Miracast wireless display adapter to connect to your HDTV"
As for the Wifi Alliance and certification... there are basic wifi connection standards which ensure interoperability between devices, brands, etc. And then there are wifi features that can be add on. This doesn't mean every Wireless N device supports all the same features (look at Wifi N.. you can have 2.4ghz or dualband 2.4Ghz+5Ghz Wifi N).
To help explain that better, think of Bluetooth and phones.. something OLD I wrote up -> http://mark.cdmaforums.com/BT-PHONE.htm all the phones listed on that page are BT certified... But notice the different profiles each support? Same thing with wifi and wifi certification.
for the rest, I'm late for my son's T-ball game, so I'll reply later when I get a chance...
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
edit not found AP setting.
But easily connected my windows tablet to the TV using Intelwidi
KidJoe
Thank you for time taken and advice given. Ive resigned myself to the fact that I'm unable to connect the phone to the TV. As said earlier it is easier to change the phone, no matter how good the moto x is (which it is) it may be a lg fault but I'm not I'm not getting the functuallity I want.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Now that I have some time, I just want to dive into this a little more so we both understand this a little better... I'm no expert on this stuff, I'm just learning...
kenrw7 said:
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've been able to find and read on the subject, Wifi Display, WiDi, and WiFi Direct are different. WiDi is an intel standard that has been out for a few years. Its used by intel based PC's and laptops to use a TV as a monitor without wires. Wifi Direct can connect two wifi devices directly, and can be used to transfer files. Wifi Display I'm still learning about as it appears to just be an underlying component to Miracast and Miracast Certification, not something used separately.
from the 5 Frequently Asked Questions on -> http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=Wifi display#.U2-IAIFdUhE
Code:
[B]What is the difference between Miracast and Wi-Fi Display?[/B]
Miracast is the brand for the certification program operated by Wi-Fi Alliance. Devices that pass this certification testing can be referred to as “Miracast devices”. Miracast certification is based on the Wi-Fi Alliance Wi-Fi Display Specification. This is the underlying technological specification developed by Wi-Fi Alliance members, and is copyrighted and owned by Wi-Fi Alliance.
[b]How is Miracast related to Wi-Fi Direct?[/b]
Wi-Fi Direct allows devices to connect directly to each other, without the need for a Wi-Fi AP, and requiring just the push of a button, the entry of a PIN, or tapping two NFC-capable devices together. Wi-Fi Direct allows source and display devices to discover one another and provides the underlying device-to-device connectivity for Miracast. Miracast builds upon Wi-Fi Direct with mechanisms to negotiate video capabilities, setup content protection (if needed), stream content, and maintain the video session.
kenrw7 said:
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Widi is NOT Miracast, see the above WiDi link I supplied. WiDi and Wifi Display are not listed on the certification documents for your TV and the X, only Wifi-Direct. In addition to Wifi-Direct, the certification sheet for the X also lists Miracast-Source.
So with the LG web site claiming Widi and Wifi Display, they might not have received certification for it. Why can they show the wifi alliance certificaiton on their box? Maybe because they received certifications for the other parts (like wifi-direct and connectivity)?
kenrw7 said:
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are various levels of Wifi Alliance certification. Basic connection, Basic interoperability standards, backwards compatibility, etc. They ensure that you pick up a Wireless G card from belkin and it connects to your Netgear Wireless G router, or that your wireless N card can work with your B, G, or N router properly, etc. Just that "connect" needs Wifi Alliance certification, and that is enough to bare the symbol on the box. Then there are the "add-ons" like Wifi Direct, Miracast, etc.
My older LG BD390 and BD570 bluray players have the Wifi Certification logo on the box. Only wireless they can do is make a connection to a B, G, or N access point.
Think of it this way... You can buy a Buick Verano... get it equipped with or without Nav, with our without leather type interior, with or without sunroof... but any way you buy it, its a Buick Verano. Yeah, its not the best analogy, but I hope it, and the bluetooth link for the older phones I provided, illustrates different configuration possibilities while still being able to have the "certification" logo.
Oh, and there is similar dis-function in the DLNA certification process!! (even though my BD390 and BD570 received DLNA certification and have the logo on the sides of their boxes, they do not properly adhere to DLNA standards so some DLNA servers like Serviio and others don't properly work with them)
kenrw7 said:
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each vendor is going to blame the other. That is how it goes. They build their devices to a "standard" and get it "certified" so they think it must be the other guy's fault.
kenrw7 said:
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As suggested earlier, you could buy a real Miracast dongle for your TV. It will probably be more cost effective than replacing the phone.
Or you could by a Samsung phone. I think they still support MHL on the S5. Or they support their AllCast Share (which would need a device for your TV to make work).
All that being said, the Wifi Alliance Certification certificate for my Sony KDL-5HX750 is very similar to yours, except your TV supports 5Ghz A band wifi, where mine does not. Both only list WPA/WPA2 Security, Wifi B, G, N, Wifi-Direct, WMM, and WPS.
The X (XT1060/XT1050/XT941L) lists those plus support for Wifi Direct and Miracast Source.
So in the interest of this discussion, and to see what is possible, I tried Wifi Direct via the following -> http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/bravia_i-manuals/FY11/GA/eng/HX920_DS/nt_wfdirect.html and I can make the connection. If I follow -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0wnkZUVDKs I get to the 1:20 mark just fine, and the connection is established. The video then demonstrates "throwing" content from the device. The built in video player and photo gallery apps on the X do not have these options, unless I can find an add on app in the store?
I need to better understand the statement of "media remote" in the video since Sony does have a Media Remote app in the PlayStore, but that has been replaced by what looks like a TV remote only app. Installing the older Media Remote (OLD) app from the play store, In DEMO MODE I do get throw/catch options on my phone. I will have to get time to try and use this while connected to my TV. Its Mothers day, so that will have to wait.
Ivy did know there is a difference between wifi direct (file transfer) wifi display (streaming) widi (Intel streaming). I have widi working with my Intel tablet. But ive not got WiFi display working with TV/phone may be because the tv is not branded as miracast. Reading your post I read as there are 2 WiFi display standards, one of which is the miracast brand the other unbranded and from my experience you can't make connectivity between the two. TV ( WiFi display) will not connect to moto x (miracast) even both are certified. So miracast:miracast or WiFi display:WiFi display only
But not WiFi display:miracast
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I've got an LG Smart TV and Miracast works flawlessly with it any time I want to use it.
My Nexus 5 was very flaky and wouldn't connect properly but the Moto X is perfect.
Wutang200 which model number is your LG?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Hi guys,
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
It does not only need a Wi-Fi connection (which is normal : the wireless signal has to come from somewhere) but it also needs an internet connection.
I would like to cast the screen of my smartphone when I'm not at home.
So I got me a wireless router.
I activate it.
The Chromecast can connect to it.
The Smartphone can connect to it.
And so the smartphone can connect to the Chromecast.
But that's it...
I can't cast anything because I have no internet connection.
OK.
So I turned on my phone as an access point.
I then configured the travel router to get the internet connection from the phone.
Cool... now the Chromecast says it's ready to cast.
But now I'm stuck because as soon as I want to cast something from my phone to the Chromecast, I have to turn Wi-Fi on...
But turning on Wi-Fi on my phone disables the AP.
And so the Chromecast refuses to display anything because it's not connected to the internet anymore !
Isn't that about the most stupid thing ever designed ?
Frankly, I then see only really little use to it...
And I think I am not the only one : there are about 10 apps that are Cast capable...
And that after more than a year the dongle has been released !
Will look for something that is able to cast without an internet connection.
Will probably be much easier... and maybe even cheaper !
If you have an advice on how to get this POS to work without an internet connection, I'll gladly take your advice.
If that is not easily achieved, if you have an alternative, I'll gladly consider it...
regards.
What are you trying to send to your Chromecast? Netflix, YouTube, and other services that have the cast button basically act as remote controls for the Chromecast, but it needs its own Internet connection to stream the content as your phone is just inputting commands for it.
You could try (albeit I've never done this) connecting the Chromecast to your hotspot access point, and then just using the built-in screen mirroring feature of the Chromecast app. Granted, that would mean you'd have to leave your phone's screen on...but it would show the same thing that's on the phone, on the TV. And I'm not sure if that would even work since you still don't have WiFi on and your phone is acting as the modem and not as a device on the same network.
The only other things I could suggest, would be to buy additional hardware. You could go through your carrier to purchase one of those hotspot devices, then connect your phone and your Chromecast to that, and that will work. Though with that option you'll most likely have to pay an extra fee for the data line for the hotspot device. The other route you could take, would be to buy a cheap tablet or another phone and use it as the controller when your primary phone is in hotspot mode. The latter option is what my friend does as he uses his phone's unlimited data plan to provide Internet through his entire house when he's at home...and just uses his tablet to stream Netflix to the Chromecast.
If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.
You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.
I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.
I like my chromecast, but my android stick gets about 10x more usage. Chromecast seriously needs some more streaming services. If you don't have Netflix, in the UK it has about two widely used apps (youtube and iplayer), and that's it, not great this far on.
Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app
NexusPenguin said:
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just you... Everyone else have internet connection at home, which is normal these days...
Hi Srandista,
Yes, everyboby has an internet connection at home.
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
So we're saying the same thing :
- at home everyone has an internet connection AND connected devices => the Chromecast is useless ;
- when you're not at home, the Chromecast is useless until you're somewhere where you can get an internet connection...
And even then : if I want to cast a Video to my Chromecast, I have to upload my video to the cloud BEFORE I start to stream...
Isn't that ridiculous ? Especially as using other software allows to stream directly ?
Just for your information : there are other devices like the Chromecast (they even look like the Chromecast) that can be used without an internet connection.
Sorry, but despite your answer, I persist saying that the Chromecast conception lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs.
Regards.
DJames1 said:
If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
But that won't work. As I wrote in my post : if I turn on my phone as an AP, that disables the Wi-Fi. So I can't stream to my Chromecast that way.
Regards.
xFuGiToiDx said:
Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi
Many thanks for your kind reply.
I would recommend you read posts before flaming people.
If you would have, you would have noticed that I was saying I was trying to use it WHEN I AM NOT at home.
I have a 100Mbps line at home. But also a networked TV, a networked Blu-Ray player and a networked Media player /streamer.
So I don't really have the use of a Chromecast at home...
Regards.
alton987 said:
I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
That is what I usually do.
BUT : honestly :
1°) the need for an active internet connection for the thing to even work does not appear clearly ;
2°) I don't spend 5 hours researching for a 35 bucks device... my time is somewhat more precious than that.
I'll look into cheap Miracast devices. I only need to mirror my screen, so I guess that more than enough.
Regards.
primetechv2 said:
You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks...
Yes, that's what I am doing right now. Phone with a MHL adpator and HDMI plugged into the projector.
But that implies that I have a cable lying around my class and me or my student are likely to stumble on it...
That is why I wanted to use the Chromecast...
Regards.
Hi,
OK, to make things clear, here's what I would like to do.
I am a teacher.
During my class I pass .ppt slides on a VP.
During my class, I don't sit behind my desk : I walk among the students.
So what I would like to do is following :
- 1°) connect my phone to the VP with the Chromecast ;
- 2°) have my phone displaying the slides => a simple mirror of the screen will do ;
- 3°) use a tablet in "Presentation mode" as a remote for the phone so I can go the next slide when I want to.
I can achieve everything using a MHL adaptor to connect the phone to the VP.
But I would like to be able to make that wirelessly...
Chromecast is a no go... unless of course I add another device in the whole bunch : smartphone + 2 tablets. Phone as access point, tablet 1 as caster ; tablet 2 as remote. then of course, I will need some chargers, an external battery pack... Not really the simplification I was looking for.
Regards.
Goodness, the supporters of Google Cast are rather quick to throw down the gauntlet today. =( As somebody who is constantly critiquing devices, I can say with certainty that there are many things that even reading reviews will not disclose, and even if the information is available, it might be hard to find.
Telling somebody they should get internet access in the snobbish manner seen here really doesn't help matters at all either.... less bile equals a greater percentage of useful content, right? Talking about MHL or Miracast or discussing manufacturer specific options or suggesting different CC compatible devices (Matchstick anyone? It's coming in 2015) might be more helpful.
For example, as it stands, I can't believe using a phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot would knock out its data functionality... or at least that it would make it impossible to connect to a CC. That seems like a fundamental problem there.
Here is the best possible solution for you nexus....
You will have to give up on the Phone showing the slides because you are attempting to stream to two devices which doesn't work.
You really shouldn't need the phone to display...
Plug the CCast into the Projector....
Turn on the Hotspot feature of your phone, It will still get it's data and email and tweets ect ect ....
Set up the CCast to get it's internet from the Phone WiFi Hotspot and then connect the tablet to the Hotspot as well.
You should then be able to cast the screen of the tablet to the Projector and run your slideshow.
You might even be able to use some other powerpoint viewer app that supports CCast (I think VBU kit does that) but you can just as easily screen cast the tablet to the projector if your tablet supports it.
You should be good to go the only thing that you will be missing is the display of the slides on the phone and since you are manipulating the slides on the tablet there really is no reason to see them on the phone as well.
I was pretty much going to recommend a similar fix. I have an old crap phone with no data plan that I play movies on while traveling. I just setup my actual phone as the hotspot and have my crap phone and CC connect to it. I have heard :? that the app that shall remain nameless thing works pretty good. I use Avia to throw those shows to my CC.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
hell yeah!
NexusPenguin said:
Hi Srandista,
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love my Chromecast. Prior to buying it, I had:
- A Blu-Ray player with internet connectivity... with a slow, horrible interface, and poor streaming services support.... that also didn't stream from local devices.
- An HDTV with no network support
- A "media player" that didn't work with most/any of the pay-for streaming services, that I had to constantly troubleshoot, with a low Wife Acceptance Factor.
With the Chromecast I can stream locally (from a Plex Server), watch most of the pay-for streaming services I want (so I can "cut the cord"), and it "just works" as far as the Wife is concerned, so she's happy. Even my kiddos can use it. Given that the Chromecast remains the top seller in the Electronics category at Amazon, I think Google hit the nail on the head with this one. Far from a "stupid", "useless", "ridiculous", concept that "lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs" that results in the "worst experience ever".
Just because you're pissed that the square peg you bought won't fit in a round hole doesn't mean the device is stupid or useless. It's like the saying goes that "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Go get yourself a screwdriver, because you have the wrong tool for your particular job. I mentioned Plex once already: If you're looking for a simple, offline streaming experience with that works like the Chromecast does get yourself a Raspberry Pi, and install RaspPlex on it. If you're trying to playback from a local disk, put XBMC on it instead. I plan on putting a media center in my kid-hauler, and one of these two will probably end up being what I use. There are many options out there for offline playback, but the Chromecast it not one of them.
Well said. I have two chromecast and they are exactly what I need. Very useful.
Sent from my SM-N910V using XDA Free mobile app