Related
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've just bought a Chromecast device and I'm trying to
setup it. The problem is that when I plug it to the tv, a message appears
saying "Starting chromecast" and then the Chrome logo. After that, black
screen. Nothing appears. The setup program in my pc can find the device but
I can't see anything on the TV.
My TV model is LG 32LE5500
I tried rebooting the TV by unplugging everything and nothing changed.
Also I tried the Chromecast devide in another TV and it worked there, but it's not my TV and I need it to work in the LG one.
I've tried all hdmi ports and it's the same in all of them. The chrome logo and then black.
The last thing I did is to configure the device from the other TV and then plug it on the TV that doesn't work. I realized that the audio does work, I launched the YouTube app from my cellphone and I could hear the video, but again, black screen.
Could it be that my TV has a resolution of 1900x1080 and not 1920x1080?
Please I will appreaciate any kind of help, I really wanted to use the device and it's useless for me right now
According to LG, that's a normal 1080p screen.
http://www.lg.com/levant_en/tvs/lg-32LE5500-led/technical-specifications
More likely there's a router setup issue. This may help as a starting point -
https://support.google.com/chromecast/table/3477832?hl=en
santi.marro said:
I've just bought a Chromecast device and I'm trying to
setup it. The problem is that when I plug it to the tv, a message appears
saying "Starting chromecast" and then the Chrome logo. After that, black
screen. Nothing appears. The setup program in my pc can find the device but
I can't see anything on the TV.
...
Could it be that my TV has a resolution of 1900x1080 and not 1920x1080?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your TV is 1080p, so it's 1920 horizontal.
IIRC the boot logo sends 480p, then Chromecast negotiates with the TV as to what resolutions are supported.
Your TV might not be playing nice in the negotiation process.
So, try booting Chromecast without it connected to the TV.
Disconnect power from Chromecast
Disconnect Chromecast from TV
Reapply power to Chromecast
Wait for it to boot (wait until LED goes solid steady white)
Turn on TV if it is not already on
Set TV to Chromecast input
Plug Chromecast into TV input
bhiga said:
Your TV is 1080p, so it's 1920 horizontal.
IIRC the boot logo sends 480p, then Chromecast negotiates with the TV as to what resolutions are supported.
Your TV might not be playing nice in the negotiation process.
So, try booting Chromecast without it connected to the TV.
Disconnect power from Chromecast
Disconnect Chromecast from TV
Reapply power to Chromecast
Wait for it to boot (wait until LED goes solid steady white)
Turn on TV if it is not already on
Set TV to Chromecast input
Plug Chromecast into TV input
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried it and it's the same, a black screen. It works with a monitor that I have and another TV, but, sadly, I need it to work in the LG TV
EarlyMon said:
According to LG, that's a normal 1080p screen.
More likely there's a router setup issue. This may help as a starting point -
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The chromecast device works, I checked it and configured it in another TV, but I need it to work in the LG one.
santi.marro said:
I tried it and it's the same, a black screen. It works with a monitor that I have and another TV, but, sadly, I need it to work in the LG TV
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very strange. Almost sounds like an HDCP handshake problem.
Try the HDMI extender in case it's just not plugging in quite right.
Other than that, you can try disabling HDMI CEC (LG calls it SimpLink) and see if that makes a difference.
Do you know what firmware build it has? (Chromecast app will tell you)
bhiga said:
Very strange. Almost sounds like an HDCP handshake problem.
Try the HDMI extender in case it's just not plugging in quite right.
Other than that, you can try disabling HDMI CEC (LG calls it SimpLink) and see if that makes a difference.
Do you know what firmware build it has? (Chromecast app will tell you)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've just tried the device with the extender and SimpLink deactivated and it's the same again
Here I leave a screenshot of the Chromecast app attached
santi.marro said:
I've just tried the device with the extender and SimpLink deactivated and it's the same again
Here I leave a screenshot of the Chromecast app attached
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice names.
Well, you're on the latest firmware build (15250) so either Google broke something in the newest update, or your TV is finicky.
Since your TV is Smart, it might have a firmware update available.
Wait... The specs say "TruMotion 100Hz" - is your TV PAL? It might not support NTSC input...
bhiga said:
Nice names.
Well, you're on the latest firmware build (15250) so either Google broke something in the newest update, or your TV is finicky.
Since your TV is Smart, it might have a firmware update available.
Wait... The specs say "TruMotion 100Hz" - is your TV PAL? It might not support NTSC input...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HDMI doesn't care about PAL vs NTSC frequencies by design, exactly why so many in the UK were able to adopt early last year.
EarlyMon said:
HDMI doesn't care about PAL vs NTSC frequencies by design, exactly why so many in the UK were able to adopt early last year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree that it shouldn't matter in this day and age, they still exist separately in the EDID data because of the differing pixel clocks.
It's possible (though ill-advised) for a modern display to reject an input signal based on it being 50/100 Hz or 60/120 Hz.
I deal with a lot of AV stuff and have run into this issue from time to time.
Well, TIL then.
EarlyMon said:
Well, TIL then.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm learning every day... sometimes the hard way.
Traditionally European TV sets have been more forgiving than their US counterparts, accepting NTSC "nudged" into PAL-60 or NTSC 4.43 in the analog realm.
While the transition to HD did unify the display resolutions and pixel aspect ratios (everything's square, yay!), the differences in refresh/sampling rates remained.
One day my friend, one day... everything will be 600 Hz or better so 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 fps content will all be supported and play without judder or needing interpolation. :cyclops:
So back to the topic at hand, it's possible the OP's TV doesn't know what to do with a 30/60 Hz input from Chromecast, though that would be quite silly of LG to impose such a restriction. Still, silly happens more often than you think for all kinds of reasons (gray market sales due to varying exchange rates and import/export laws often is a concern, as we burden on regional support that got no revenue from the foreign sale).
TBH, I don't know for certain whether Chromecast is capable of 25/50 Hz output, it might be. But being that Google isn't selling it outside of US/Canada yet, I doubt they've tested it.
>> Anybody in Europe, can you confirm me whether Chromecast outputs 720/50p, 1080/50i or 1080/50p to your TV? <<
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda app-developers app
Thank you for all your replies,
For what I know, my TV accept NTSC but I'm not 100% sure. I am from South America by the way, in theory electronics here are NTSC.
kDnZP said:
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That TV in the picture you posted is very similar to the one I have. Did you have any problem using the chromecast device?
The link I gave was from the Eastern Mediterranean, I was more curious about verifying your resolution at the time. There's a 60/120 Hz (NTSC) version of your set, same model number, popular in several South American countries.
I apologize for adding the confusion.
santi.marro said:
That TV in the picture you posted is very similar to the one I have. Did you have any problem using the chromecast device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not any problem with LG 26LE3300 (1366x768 native resolution).
santi.marro said:
Thank you for all your replies,
For what I know, my TV accept NTSC but I'm not 100% sure. I am from South America by the way, in theory electronics here are NTSC.
That TV in the picture you posted is very similar to the one I have. Did you have any problem using the chromecast device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, should work.
Worst-case, since you have other displays that Chromecast does display properly on, you could try this: (it worked on 13300, haven't had need or opportunity to try it on 14975 or 15250)
Locate working monitor and LG TV in close proximity
Connect Chromecast to working monitor and wall power
Once Chromecast is booted, unplug Chromecast from monitor only
Plug Chromecast into LG TV
Likely this will not survive a Chromecast reboot though...
I've got a Sanyo DP50740, and my Chromecast is now showing this same behavior. It used to work fine, but I think that the update to firmware 15250 broke something with hdcp in some TV's.
I filed a bug with Google, but the end result was that the google helpdesk can't tell what was updated in the latest build.
I suggest you file a similar bug with Google, so that they see that this is happening with multple TV models.
Until they fix this I'm stuck with a paperweight.
AustinMartin said:
Until they fix this I'm stuck with a paperweight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It won't sync up even if you hot-plug Chromecast HDMI after it's already booted?
bhiga said:
It won't sync up even if you hot-plug Chromecast HDMI after it's already booted?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, tried that. The only thing I haven't tried is to boot up plugged into another device then plug in. Don't have any portable monitors with hdmi input. It might be that they fixed this glitch in the latest firmware.
This is the annoyance of allowing google to update firmware at will. They can break your device, and there's then nothing you can do except wait for the next release. That's why I encourage the original poster to file a bug with them. That's their only window into what's happening.
AustinMartin said:
Nope, tried that. The only thing I haven't tried is to boot up plugged into another device then plug in.
...
They can break your device, and there's then nothing you can do except wait for the next release. That's why I encourage the original poster to file a bug with them. That's their only window into what's happening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The no HDMI and different HDMI scenarios should be different, they have been in my case at least, but understand not having a practical means to try.
Agree. That's the danger of forced updates.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
JoshAraujo said:
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://allaboutchromecast.com/chrom...cast-to-share-desktop-screen-and-audio-to-tv/
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
You could try vnc2cast.
primetechv2 said:
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That thing is terrible, Google marks it as an experimental piece of software and it has such high latency, gaming on it is hit and miss, sometimes its okay, sometimes its terrible
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesnt that only pass on Video, and no audio?
I havent tried it though, will give it a shot
JoshAraujo said:
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a simple solution for that. Use an HDMI extender cable and simply place it in a place that receives better WiFi signal.
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
primetechv2 said:
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got a link to the media server method?
JoshAraujo said:
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
JoshAraujo said:
Got a link to the media server method?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
bhiga said:
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
primetechv2 said:
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, ive used both for media streaming, but neither do Screencasting
Yes, you can do it with Google desktop casting. It's am option in the Google Cast extension for Chrome. Chrome has to be running, but can be minimized in the background.
No, it won't accomplish what you want. Performance is poor, with jerky video and too much latency for action games. The performance problems may be insurmountable for games, but the video streaming problems are more due to crappy code by Google - other apps manage the job of transcoding and relaying internet video to the Chromecast in real time without as much difficulty (like Plex and PlayOn). WiFi is not the issue.
JoshAraujo said:
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Asphyx said:
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3000 megabits is around 300 megabytes
Hey Guys,
I've been using a 256GB Exynos Note 8 as my first ever Samsung Smartphone for almost a year now, and I've been really loving the extremely versatile featureset it packs. It has hands down been the most useful Smartphone I've ever had after over half a decade of jailbroken iPhones and just switching to Android on a OnePlus One back in 2014. So much so, I've literally been using it as a Pocket PC for most of my computing needs, relying less and less on my Surface Pro 2.
However, there has been one pet peve that just keeps getting in the way of me enjoying my Note 8 to the fullest; whenever I try to miracast Netflix running on my Note 8 to my Microsoft Wireless Display Adaptor connected to a big screen (be it in my living room, bed room, or a hotel room), I only get audio and subtitles, no video Everything else -- including presentations, games and YouTube -- stream smoothly and very reliably from my Note 8 to whatever big screen I want, way better than even my Surface Pro 2 (1st party hardware). However, I just can't get Netflix to stream over miracast from my Note 8. Oddly enough, it works from my Surface Pro 2 with the latest Netflix app from the Microsoft Store.
Any genius out there have some suggestions on how to get Netflix working over miracast? I don't want them chromecast as they require their own internet connection instead of simply functioning via WiFi direct. Thanks in advance.
Try loading Netflix, then only starting the miracast?
Are you plugging this adapter into a TV at a hotel etc? Or is it your home TV?
The casting is something Samsung needs to fix its quite fiddly. If I'm casting to a TV I use Smart Things.
I think you should be running the app you're trying to cast from first. Then when you click the option it should recognise your MWDA.
I used to use my Surface Tablet to cast Netflix and it was a nuisance, so I gave up and plugged it directly into the TV and used a Bluetooth mouse.
barrieo said:
Try loading Netflix, then only starting the miracast?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for the very late feedback, for some reason never saw a notification in the XDA Labs app despite responses to my thread.
I just attempted this but all it does is still show a black screen with audio over Miracast, while the video appears on my Note 8's screen.
Bu5zm4n said:
Are you plugging this adapter into a TV at a hotel etc? Or is it your home TV?
The casting is something Samsung needs to fix its quite fiddly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried it both at a camp/hotel and at home. Doesn't matter which TV I'm plugging it into, it's still the same end result; my Note 8 reliably connects over Miracast to it, but Netflix refuses to display.
Bu5zm4n said:
If I'm casting to a TV I use Smart Things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, isn't that using Chromecast though? My Wireless Display Adapter doesn't show up when I attempt to add a device in SmartThings.
Bu5zm4n said:
I think you should be running the app you're trying to cast from first. Then when you click the option it should recognise your MWDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I attempted that, and as stated above, still the same end result.
Any other suggestions on getting Netflix to work over Miracast? Thanks in advance.
BUMP
The problem might be the MWDA. I never used one, I used a 3rd party display port to HDMI cable when connecting my Surface to a TV.
I cast apps from my Note 8 to my TV using Smartthings app. Or if you click the button which says 'button order' for your notification shade, there should be one that says 'smart view' I have successfully cast Netflix on my phone to my TV this way.
Bu5zm4n said:
The problem might be the MWDA. I never used one, I used a 3rd party display port to HDMI cable when connecting my Surface to a TV.
I cast apps from my Note 8 to my TV using Smartthings app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The MWDA works perfect and reliably for ANYTHING else, besides Netflix. SmartThings is casting via Chromecast in your Smart TV, that's why it works with Netflix.
Bu5zm4n said:
Or if you click the button which says 'button order' for your notification shade, there should be one that says 'smart view' I have successfully cast Netflix on my phone to my TV this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly how I cast from my Note 8's screen to the MWDA, again, it works reliably with everything else but Netflix. The difference is it's using the Miracast protocol in the case of my MWDA, whereas the one to your Smart TV is using the Chromecast protocol (SmartView supports both).
Anyone else have any suggestions on getting Netflix to work over Miracast?
Bump