4 ms·

That's not the same. If websites don't implement a cast app themselves, then Chrome will just mirror the tab to the TV. Whereas catt and similar tools will actu

That's not the same. If websites don't implement a cast app themselves, then Chrome will just mirror the tab to the TV. Whereas catt and similar tools will actually direct the chromecast to download the video file directly and play it. This makes a big difference to quality and performance.

sombremesa 8y ago
So what you're saying is that it's probably better to use a browser, because your bandwidth between your PC and your TV is likely to be much better, as well as having the capability to cast not only web content but also anything on your desktop. Plus a mirror is much easier to control, and some cast capable devices may not have the memory to "download" video files. What am I missing here? You seem to think it's a bad thing.
- jjaredsimpson 8y ago
  Why would the bandwidth be better? I don't see a difference between a Chromecast making network requests or my PC doing it. Also casting your desktop is encoding the desktop. The quality is worse. The only advantage is for casting content with no native support.
- snowwindwaves 8y ago
  sending a video stream from a file on your disk on a computer results in higher quality video on the television than playing a video in your browser and encoding a stream of your browser window and sending that to the chromecast to display on the TV.
- TylerE 8y ago
  You're double encoding, and you're not saving bandwidth because you still have to download from the remote source. It's like one of those old FM adaptors for cars, or more pertinently - making a JPG of a GIF - everything gets worse.
Spoom 8y ago
While this is true, newer Chrome versions have a feature where if you fullscreen a video in a tab, it will (within a few seconds, if the video is in a directly supported format) attempt to send the video directly to the Chromecast instead of mirroring the tab. It doesn't always work, but it's much smoother when it does.
- w0m 8y ago
  That's nice; historically when i did that I'd lose the borders but quality would suffer. Admittedly i mostly did it with streaming content that was not CC compatible though.

sombremesa 8y ago

So what you're saying is that it's probably better to use a browser, because your bandwidth between your PC and your TV is likely to be much better, as well as having the capability to cast not only web content but also anything on your desktop. Plus a mirror is much easier to control, and some cast capable devices may not have the memory to "download" video files. What am I missing here? You seem to think it's a bad thing.

jjaredsimpson 8y ago
Why would the bandwidth be better? I don't see a difference between a Chromecast making network requests or my PC doing it. Also casting your desktop is encoding the desktop. The quality is worse. The only advantage is for casting content with no native support.
snowwindwaves 8y ago
sending a video stream from a file on your disk on a computer results in higher quality video on the television than playing a video in your browser and encoding a stream of your browser window and sending that to the chromecast to display on the TV.
TylerE 8y ago
You're double encoding, and you're not saving bandwidth because you still have to download from the remote source. It's like one of those old FM adaptors for cars, or more pertinently - making a JPG of a GIF - everything gets worse.

Spoom 8y ago

While this is true, newer Chrome versions have a feature where if you fullscreen a video in a tab, it will (within a few seconds, if the video is in a directly supported format) attempt to send the video directly to the Chromecast instead of mirroring the tab. It doesn't always work, but it's much smoother when it does.

w0m 8y ago
That's nice; historically when i did that I'd lose the borders but quality would suffer. Admittedly i mostly did it with streaming content that was not CC compatible though.