Streaming to Google ChromeCast

Forums › Online streaming services › Streaming to Google ChromeCast

1 | 2 | 3

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2120028 5-Nov-2018 10:49

allio:

The Shield has a lot more grunt than a basic Chromecast so it's quite likely it has much better performance in mirroring mode. But the quality will still never be able to match direct streaming.

I'm sure that is true but it is useful to define terms when making a statement like that. In our case, there is no discernible difference. We have an older Sony TV, 50 inch, 1080p only. Our broadband is wireless RBI, so we can't stream 4k or anything like that and we couldn't watch it in any case. Much of what we do watch is only SD so in terms of video quality, there is no difference. Buffering, dropped frames and stuttering would certainly make a difference, but we haven't had those kinds of problems so we can't perceive any difference. I have a sense that OP is not concerned with HT quality, just getting a watchable picture to the TV. For that I think screen mirroring would probably be adequate unless trying to render from something that couldn't handle the load. I don't know for certain but sometimes a degree of purism creeps into these kinds of discussions and they become about the 'correct' way of doing something instead of the way that merely works well enough.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Oblivian

7296 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2120064 5-Nov-2018 11:18

Rikkitic:

I don't know for certain but sometimes a degree of purism creeps into these kinds of discussions and they become about the 'correct' way of doing something instead of the way that merely works well enough.

Because the latter usually ends in continual posts along the lines of, I do it my own special way by this this and this, totally going against design. That noone else does. And Now this totally unrelated or different aspect of it doesn't work like I want/expect. So why.. and can anyone help to make it.

When correct methods are provided. Support and likely solutions are far wider.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2120065 5-Nov-2018 11:20

Rikkitic:

In our case, there is no discernible difference. We have an older Sony TV, 50 inch, 1080p only. Our broadband is wireless RBI, so we can't stream 4k or anything like that and we couldn't watch it in any case. Much of what we do watch is only SD so in terms of video quality, there is no difference. Buffering, dropped frames and stuttering would certainly make a difference, but we haven't had those kinds of problems so we can't perceive any difference. I have a sense that OP is not concerned with HT quality, just getting a watchable picture to the TV. For that I think screen mirroring would probably be adequate unless trying to render from something that couldn't handle the load. I don't know for certain but sometimes a degree of purism creeps into these kinds of discussions and they become about the 'correct' way of doing something instead of the way that merely works well enough.

Fair enough, and it's definitely true that people have different standards for what they find acceptable. My wife will happily watch a whole movie set to the wrong aspect ratio, while I will have jumped through the window five minutes in.

However: my experience (using the original Chromecast) was unacceptable performance by I would say almost any measure. The visual quality (still image) is acceptable, perhaps 80% as good as a direct stream, but I'd estimate the framerate as about 50% of the original at best. The sound is noticeably tinnier. On top of that there are frequent judders, skips, and pops/crackles in the audio. If I do anything remotely intensive on the streaming device (a Haswell i7 laptop) the stream instantly breaks up.

Perhaps you are having an experience at the very best end of the spectrum, and I'm having one at the very worst end of the spectrum. But this variability is an inherent part of the mirroring technology. It is heavily reliant on the power of both the receiving and sending devices, and on the bandwidth and reliability of your wireless network. Direct streaming will always work predictably well for everyone.

If anyone using a more recent version of the basic Chromecast/Chromecast Ultra device could weigh in on how well mirroring works for them, I'd be very interested. I'd certainly consider upgrading for more reliable performance, as there are certain things where mirroring is the only option.

kiwis

832 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2120106 5-Nov-2018 12:08

allio:

kiwis:

Is there a way to send your PC monitor output through a cat6 cable to a TV?

Yep!

Nice, so I'm not actually using my HDMI output but am using my VGA and DVI cables to connect my two monitors. I could, in theory, use this as a third monitor couldn't I and just display my browser on my TV as if it was a monitor?

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2120111 5-Nov-2018 12:12

kiwis:

Nice, so I'm not actually using my HDMI output but am using my VGA and DVI cables to connect my two monitors. I could, in theory, use this as a third monitor couldn't I and just display my browser on my TV as if it was a monitor?

What about audio? AFAIK, you can either send all audio via HDMI or all audio via your current output.

kiwis

832 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2120120 5-Nov-2018 12:22

stinger:

kiwis:

Nice, so I'm not actually using my HDMI output but am using my VGA and DVI cables to connect my two monitors. I could, in theory, use this as a third monitor couldn't I and just display my browser on my TV as if it was a monitor?

What about audio? AFAIK, you can either send all audio via HDMI or all audio via your current output.

Good point, I assumed audio was sent over HDMI but is the same the same for PC graphics cards? I've got an old GTX 750 ti (yes not the best GC but I'm not a gamer).

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2120155 5-Nov-2018 13:11

kiwis:

Nice, so I'm not actually using my HDMI output but am using my VGA and DVI cables to connect my two monitors. I could, in theory, use this as a third monitor couldn't I and just display my browser on my TV as if it was a monitor?

Correct - your TV effectively becomes a third monitor. Your GTX 750 will pass audio over the HDMI.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2120453 5-Nov-2018 18:49

allio:

In my experience, if you are at all sensitive to frame-rate fluctuations or stuttering in videos, you will not be happy with a Chromecast's full-screen video performance in "screen mirroring" mode (the only mode that will work if you are using a PC-based VPN solution to bypass geolocking).

I have a first-gen Chromecast so it's possible that things are improved with the newer models, but I very much doubt that they could have improved things that dramatically - it's a fundamental limitation of having to stream/decode/re-encode/re-stream vs just streaming.d quality video on this particular service is important to you, then you should invest in either a router-based VPN solution, or an HDMI cable.

They havent improved on the new ones. Even the ultra looks like a steaming pile of trash when mirroring a computer to it. I dont know why its so bad when something like steam inhome streaming over the same wifi network seems to deliver a constant frame rate with much less compression artifacts.

Richard rich.ms

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2120835 6-Nov-2018 11:56

richms:

They havent improved on the new ones. Even the ultra looks like a steaming pile of trash when mirroring a computer to it. I dont know why its so bad when something like steam inhome streaming over the same wifi network seems to deliver a constant frame rate with much less compression artifacts.

Thanks. I'll save my money.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2120842 6-Nov-2018 12:12

allio:

richms:

They havent improved on the new ones. Even the ultra looks like a steaming pile of trash when mirroring a computer to it. I dont know why its so bad when something like steam inhome streaming over the same wifi network seems to deliver a constant frame rate with much less compression artifacts.

Thanks. I'll save my money.

I was very disappointed when I mirrored to my Chromecast Ultra when I first bought it - thankfully I didn't need that feature. Even cabled from my PC to the Ultra there was a noticeable delay which became more obvious with any audio in the stream. I didn't notice compression artifacts but that was probably because I gave up so quickly.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2120846 6-Nov-2018 12:24

I must be lucky with my Shield because I haven't had any of these issues at all. I use mirroring frequently with sites that don't support casting and it always works perfectly. I did have the problems mentioned here with the original Chromecast and I gave it away. I was thinking of getting a new one in view of my improved Shield experience but now I think I won't.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3