Related
so here's my issue. it seems the video player itself has issues displaying 1920x1080 video. 1280x720 works fine, same video. same bitrate, same everything. this seems crocked.
do we know of any workaround for getting a 1080p to work. i've heard of people pulling it off, but i've spent three hours on this and i really believe it to be the player. i've tried third party clients and they're about 5fps. it's irksome.
help plz?
You know we have two different video players right? We have video player, and we also have movie player or something else like that. Try it.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
What do you expect to get from playing such large videos on the Cappy? I transcode mine to 720X480 in .mkv and they are simply stunning with zero playback issues. The Cappy supports the low end HD resolution of 1280X720, not the Blu-Ray rez of 1920X1080. And it supports that rez in shooting video so that it can be played back on a larger screen. There's no benefit to playing back videos that size on the device. Resize them, you won't notice any difference in picture quality and you'll save a ton of storage space.
I have 315 bluray movies half are 1080p other is 720p so half of my media is watchable on my cappy and my tab. I use Tversity to stream to my ps3 and everything but if there was away to make it only transcode 720p to mobile devices or have a player that will resize it for us that would be awesome.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
May be more of a codec problem than anything else.
While I never put anything bigger than 720p on my phone (since 1080p has no appreciable visual increase in quality on the phone screen, but a MUCH larger file size), I definitely have played 1080p on my phone before. Hence why I think it may simply be that 1080p MKV w/ certain codecs might not work. Remember that media files *legally* downloaded from the internet will often have slight variations in the parameters used when converting to MKV w/ x264/VC1/etc codec. Hence just because 2 files are "720p x264" in a Matroska container doesn't mean they are actually identically encoded. And the Galaxy S can sometimes be a bit picky about what formats it "automagically" supports and which it doesn't.
And by the way, as you clearly noticed, the "Video Player" app in Android is the only one to use the GPU to accelerate video playback. Other apps might work, but they will run the CPU way harder, and give you worse battery life. Monitoring the "time_in_state" to see what the CPU is running at, I can play 720p x264/MKV files with the CPU at only 400 MHz. Obviously, sometimes the default player won't play what you want, but it's much better to use it if at all possible.
Shammyh said:
And by the way, as you clearly noticed, the "Video Player" app in Android is the only one to use the GPU to accelerate video playback. Other apps might work, but they will run the CPU way harder, and give you worse battery life. Monitoring the "time_in_state" to see what the CPU is running at, I can play 720p x264/MKV files with the CPU at only 400 MHz. Obviously, sometimes the default player won't play what you want, but it's much better to use it if at all possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the main reason I stick with the built-in player. I was on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to St. Louis to L.A. on Tuesday and I watched 3 movies of close to six hours total length. Landed in L.A. with 31% battery still remaining.
my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao
Square peg, round hole. Hope you find a big enough hammer.
cerjam said:
my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea man I feel ya, why should you convert your movie to a realistic resolution for a 4" screen when you can ***** at other people to make it work. Doing anything yourself is for chumps.
Sent from my SGH-I897
Its nice to be able to play 1080p why convert all your media when your ps3 and Xbox can play it at that size. Don't wish to lose quality on my other devices
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
maxjivi05 said:
Its nice to be able to play 1080p why convert all your media when your ps3 and Xbox can play it at that size. Don't wish to lose quality on my other devices
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you lose quality by resizing for the device you'll be playing on? All those extra pixels of HD resolution on a 800X420 screen do not yield better quality, they just require more CPU/GPU to process and more storage space. Nothing is gained by playing HD-sized videos on the Cappy. Absolutely nothing.
I own a small HD video production company in L.A., but don't take my word for it.
I was talking about playing the same media file from my Ps3 on my tv. I'd rather not convert my 1080p files to 720 just for my hand held I'd rather have a better way to do all of it using the files I currently have. Tversity works good but not perfect for over 3G but when I had my iPhone it would play pretty good using airvideo over 3G but there has to be something to make it all work
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
cerjam said:
my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be nice to be able to do this I suppose..but if you don't mind...Why ?
If you play it on any other thing but your phone..you will not really benefit from having it this way..and also..you won't really have enough storage to hold it to be able to watch a full featured film.
Until Samsung gets off their asses and fixes the issue with making the usb-hdmi cable you will never get the output capable of seeing any difference than what you can easily do right now at 720p...If you want to ***** about something...that is what I would ***** about..They had those cables available for 1 month..and not many was ever shipped out to the stores when they introduced the phone...I've e-mailed them every week since October and the only reply is they are working on it...so...I'm not holding my breath on seeing it anytime soon since they are working on the next line of phones already..
Mac
i'll probably get xbanned by the-equinoxe for this post, but it'll be worth it.
Clienterror:
I was doing my best to not "*****" at you "other people". If I wanted to ***** i'd be obviously *****ing, not laughing about it. How about I send you my 12TB of video and you can convert it all into 480p, would that suffice for you? since you have such an issue with what I do with my device and provide absolutely no helpful solution, you do it! I sure hope you have couple dual 12core opterons sitting around, because it's gonna take you awhile. currently, encoding crank.mkv time remaining: 1h5m. now realistically i'd never convert my entire collection, just whatever video I want to watch at the time. but guess what? When i'm leaving or doing something I do not have an hour to wait. It's almost faster to download a 480p copy, you realize that right. converting while dealing with 1080p is not fast, nowhere near it. I find it unlikely you have any experience in the matter, i'm sure i've put more time and effort into this than your useless 30 second out of line response, so "chump" take the attitude and leave my thread please.
Miami_Son:
Time is gained. something new and fun is gained, every dev and intelligent person i've talked to(i'm a regular in the irc, im sure .. i've ran into a few) has tried it. Just because your personal opinion you see no reason or purpose to it, does not mean others see it that way. and not to be an ass here, but I find it surprising anybody who owns a company relating to high definition video would refer to resolution as rez.
Mac11700:
Why? Because I can. Everyone should want to do. You all see me trying to play 1080 on my phone as insane, and to me it's insane for you to NOT want to watch it on your device. I wont have enough space? i've got 32gb in my galaxys, i can fit three 1080ps. I am not stupid, and you all should not assume I am.
it's very irky that you all jump on a question without any real input on the scenario, except for the basic obvious simplest answer which really isnt helpful to the situation rather than putting in some thought and trying to solve the issue.
now: has ANYONE else made any progress with it. any input regarding 1080p on the galaxys could help solve this issue. please and thank you.
alright ive been doing some more fiddling and came up wiht the following results.
using container mkv, and AVC as codec.
i started with 1920x1080 crank 60s sample gone through handbrake reducing it to about 6mb.
1920x1080 through
1282x726 do not play. at all. unknown file.
1280x720 and below play without issue, and play damn well.
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
http://cerjturb.net/u/crank_test_1080p.mkv
does this play on ANYONES device inside video player.
cerjam said:
Miami_Son:
Time is gained. something new and fun is gained, every dev and intelligent person i've talked to(i'm a regular in the irc, im sure .. i've ran into a few) has tried it. Just because your personal opinion you see no reason or purpose to it, does not mean others see it that way. and not to be an ass here, but I find it surprising anybody who owns a company relating to high definition video would refer to resolution as rez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ooh, my internet shorthand has revealed me as a fraud. You got me.
Your insistence on trying to play HD videos larger than what the device is designed for brought to mind a good analogy. You sound like a guy who bought a nice sports car and is appalled at finding out he can't run it in the Indy 500.
cerjam said:
1920x1080 through
1282x726 do not play. at all. unknown file.
1280x720 and below play without issue, and play damn well.
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could it possibly be that your video is simply beyond what the player and/or the device is designed to handle? Square peg, round hole, I say. 1280x720 is indeed within the scope of the HD specification, so there is no fraud in saying the device can play HD content. It just can't play the high end of the HD spectrum. Live with it or get another device.
He's just trying to find away to not reconvert 3,000 hours of videos... if there was away for the computer to transcode to 720p to the device but leave it 1080p for the ps3 but not make 2 files for one video.... how hard is it to want that??? Tversity works for that but it don't detect the device as a mobile device that wants 720p it either does 1080 or goes way low and looks like crap... we want it to do both 720p for they device Ans 1080p for the ps3 at the same time.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
maxjivi05 said:
He's just trying to find away to not reconvert 3,000 hours of videos... if there was away for the computer to transcode to 720p to the device but leave it 1080p for the ps3 but not make 2 files for one video.... how hard is it to want that??? Tversity works for that but it don't detect the device as a mobile device that wants 720p it either does 1080 or goes way low and looks like crap... we want it to do both 720p for they device Ans 1080p for the ps3 at the same time.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand that, but it's like complaining that his old tube TV won't display HD signals. Or that his DVD player won't play BD discs. It just wasn't designed to do it. For a device to transcode 1080p to 720p on the fly would require a lot more horsepower than what the Captivate has under the hood. Accept and move on.
First, I understand why you want this; it's a matter of convenience and I don't blame you.
cerjam said:
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It may be the same codec and container, but what is the bitrate? A lot more data may have to be pumped through the i/o system and larger frames are going to have to be resampled. I'm not saying it is impossible on the hardware, but it might be. I seriously doubt that it's just a matter of some bug, oversight, or intentional disabling of 1080p without good reason.
UPDATE!!!
links to what i am talking about. Want to change the frame buffer rate.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=912197
Desciption of what i mean.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm
*What Refresh Rate Means*
With the introduction of television display technologies, such LCD, Plasma, and DLP, and also Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, another factor has entered into play that affects how frames of video content are displayed on a screen: Refresh Rate. Refresh rate represents how many times the actual Television screen image is completely reconstructed every second. The idea is that the more times the screen is "refreshed" every second, the smoother the image is in terms of motion rendering and flicker reduction.
In other words, the image looks better the faster the screen can refresh itself. Refresh rates of televisions and other types of video displayed are measured in "hz" (Hertz). For example: A Television with a 60hz refresh rate represents complete reconstruction of the screen image 60 times every second. As a result, this also means that each video frame (in a 30 frame per second signal) is repeated twice every 60th of a second. By looking at the math, one can easily figure out how other frames rates related to other refresh rates.
The important thing to take into consideration is how the increase in Refresh Rate improves, or doesn't improve, the perceived screen image quality for you, the consumer. Let your own eyes be your guide as you comparison shop for your next television.
Is it possible to jump our frame buffer rate up past its current 60 limitation?
I will look for some links, but i know other devices (gtab?) have jumped from 51 to 79. This will make all video and games blow our mind!
ssserpentine said:
Is it possible to jump our framerate up past its current 60 limitation?
I will look for some links, but i know other devices (gtab?) have achieved 70 and 80. This will make all video and games blow our mind!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does we have this limit ? And if we have it will not affect any thing the human eye can't see more than 60 fps and the tab screen is only 68 fps so the 60fps limitation will not affect us
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
hoss_n2 said:
Does we have this limit ? And if we have it will not affect any thing the human eye can't see more than 60 fps and the tab screen is only 68 fps so the 60fps limitation will not affect us
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you missunderstand what i mean.
Post updated with links to xda thread where i read about it, and a description of what i mean.
ssserpentine said:
UPDATE!!!
links to what i am talking about.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=912197
Desciption of what i mean
http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm[/URL]
Is it possible to jump our framerate up past its current 60 limitation?
I will look for some links, but i know other devices (gtab?) have achieved 70 and 80. This will make all video and games blow our mind!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Update
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
In my area Time Warner Cable has blacked out CBS... so today I can't watch the US Open games being televised by CBS. Chromecast to the rescue... just go to the US Open Live Streaming site and cast it to your TV.
Oh my it is so choppy. I have a pretty new router that I bought last year and 20 mbps internet yet it's really broken up. I'm the only one using the internet, too. When I just stream it on my computer monitor it's amazingly HD with no problems at all.
That being said CBS is back on Time Warner anyway so it's all good. It would have been funny especially seeing the TWC logo all over the US open as they're a sponsor, yet TWC wouldn't have been able to show the US Open for their customers.
yahoowizard said:
Oh my it is so choppy. I have a pretty new router that I bought last year and 20 mbps internet yet it's really broken up. I'm the only one using the internet, too. When I just stream it on my computer monitor it's amazingly HD with no problems at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The limitation is caused by the CPU of your computer not your internet speed. It is hard to really have a smooth experience with video on the Chromecast using screen casting no matter what CPU you use.
Well my CPU is pretty good. My computer's just a little bit over five years old but it's still a good custom built gaming computer, so I doubt that's the issue.
yahoowizard said:
Well my CPU is pretty good. My computer's just a little bit over five years old but it's still a good custom built gaming computer, so I doubt that's the issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is absolutely the issue. Search the threads in this forum. It is having to transcode in realtime which is very difficult to do. That is why screen casting will never be smooth.
The Apple TV seems to do it really well, and I'm not sure how far it is specs wise but it doesn't seem like that much. Although I'm sure the Apple TV tries to steal a lot of the bandwidth in exchange for amazing quality. We have an Apple TV here and the mirroring is just wonderful but of course not much I can do with my phone on it. Chromecast can't seem to handle the scrolling on webpages perfectly yet while the Apple TV shows stuff like Fruit Ninja with absolutely no lag. Hopefully it's just a software issue that gets resolved soon.
I think it's the same with FaceTime as well with the large bandwidth take but the quality on that is amazing as well. Haven't really seen anything to match the quality of that, even when it's something like Tango or Skype or Hangouts on super fast internet vs. Facetime on ****ty internet, Facetime seems to do better. And it's not just a matter of better, it's like super high frames per second and HD quality as though playing a video on Youtube or something.
Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app
Well you can't tab cast from your phone. It streams directly from the internet and doesn't display mirror. So it will stream whatever the source content and your TV resolutions are.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
PortalOfGaming said:
Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quad HD? Like UltraHD (3840x2160)?
Casting local media directly (via Avia, RealPlayer Cloud, or Allcast for rooted Chromecasts) is as-is, no conversion of the media happens, and Chromecast will play the media if it is capable of decoding it.
I don't think Chromecast can decode UltraHD as it tends to have trouble with 1080p and high (>10 Mbps) bitrates, but I'm not 100% on that. I can use AllCast to send a 1080p video I shot on my phone, but there's a little bit of pause now and then.
As far as known issues, some old TVs that report 1080p support but don't actually display correctly have trouble. Some Yamaha receivers are having some trouble with the latest firmware.
Most other issues are either in progress or have already been taken care of via updates on the application side.
A tiny number of reports of Chromecasts being "bricked" but probably normal or better for the number of Chromecasts out in the wild.
There is a phone with QuadHD resolution?!??!??!??!? LOL
There is a lot of Misinformation regarding resolution in the Phone business I assure you...
Cameras that say they shoot 1080P in most cases don't. The Chip (CMOS for the most part) does not have a REAL 1080P resolution. What it does is take the native resolution of the camera (usually much lower) and SAVE THE FILE in 1080P by simply upconverting it.
And Upconverting doesn't ADD resolution or Quality it just doubles the size of each pixel to fill in all the pixels of the higher resolution.
You may find a phone or Camera that says it supports 4K but in truth it is not a REAL 4K! The File will read and display on a 4K device but your not really getting the FULL RESOLUTION a 4K video has when captured natively in a TRUE 4K.
The Chips that receive the image from the lens are not large enough to do a true 4K. It is merely upconverted when saved to that format.
Like taking a single pixel and repeating it 3 more time to make a pixel 4 times the size of the original where in a REAL 4K each pixel can be different and rarely are the same (maybe similar but not the same)
Now these chips are improving by leaps and bounds so in time they may even do these resolutions for real...But by then we will also have things like 16K because the bigger cameras with have 3/4" and 1' CCDs or CMOS' will advance from the technology as well.
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
I have good internet, so I don't worry about that.
Thank you all for your answers, I'm going to buy a chromecast when I come home.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.
PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see qHD from the computer realm. Thanks for teaching me something new! :good:
I have some VGA (640x480) videos and from Avia they play picture-boxed (black border on all sides, because Avia does not alter the video). So it will likely depend on what application you use and what Chromecast decides to do in terms of scaling, if it has any (I don't know).
I think the biggest reason it can't do 1080p natively is because it's wireless G. I can only hope Google decides to release another chromecast or something else like it with wireless AC.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2
It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
bhiga said:
It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-an-awesome-35-hdmi-dongle/2
Edit - My Samsung UN46F6300 is also terrible at streaming HD content over it's Wi-Fi (also 2.4GHz), but connecting the tv's Ethernet to my WD wireless AC bridge alleviates all this.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2
Yes the 2.4 GHz band is not optimal as it's crowded but latency issues aside, it's fine.
The hardware still matters because most hardwareand appliance-oriented decoders have limits to the maximum bitrate it can decode due to buffer and memory limits.
It's much different to more general CPUs which can allocate more memory and have more CPU power to adjust.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
Jocelyn said:
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm pretty sure GPlay does some transcoding but not 100% sure. In any case If the unit is having issues playing the video over 2.4Ghz the issue is really the Video Bitrate needs to be lowered enough to stream without issue. In the end no one is getting full HD 1080P on any device over ANY wired or wireless network because Full HD uncompressed has a Bitrate of over 1.49 Gbps. Far beyond standard Ethernet standards which is why we use Fiber Optic for broadcast and even then we compress the hell out of it before you ever see it.
So pretty much all HD we are playing is not really full HD.
Can you play 1080P locally?
PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahhh no Problem...You meant quarterHD actually...
You wouldn't have confused us if NHK and a Consortium hadn't actually invented QuadHD for Broadcast! bhiga and I both work in broadcast and were recently talking about it.
Well, I forgot that it was Quarter HD, but it's okay now, since I have aleardy ordered it. Again, thanks for your help guys.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
AleT said:
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
bhiga said:
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
AleT said:
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see. Then you might be okay, though it's always nice to have more "headroom."
Definitely make sure you have 4 GB or more RAM and of course 64-bit Windows, rather than 32-bit.
Best if the hardware can provide hardware acceleration for Flash as well.
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Raw GHz isn't really the best measure of performance anyway. The i5 notebook will definitely be good enough for 480p, not sure about HD. Also Windows 8.1 supports wireless screen sharing so if you can find an affordable receiver you'd get smoother results that way.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
DJames1 said:
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The stuttering with Tab Casting has more to do with the method they are using to stream as it does the power of the machine doing the streaming...
Tab Casting is (I Think it is anyway) using an M-JPEG to stream to the CCast...
Which is just what it sounds like sending JPG frames in series like it's some sort of Webcam.