media streaming from router's USB network drive to TV doesn't work

  • Thread starter Thread starter WindowsAssassin
  • Start date Start date
delta007bhd gmail.com wrote:

All this technology and gimmicks will ultimately lead to the
decay and fall of our western civilisation, just like the roman
empire went down.
Click to expand...

Depending on how we use it. If we continue using our high
technology to rid the world of evil men and free all the world's
women from their husbands, that might happen.
 
The renderer part is in his TV!!!!! What he has built into his pc is basically
like what the WD LIVE settop boxes or BOXEE boxes do.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. His TV cannot render all of his video formats, because
he stated so himself (that it only handled the mpg format). Neither
can his router play video (no router can). Thus, he needs a third
device in his setup to do that rendering.

That's why he should just buy a WD TV Live or a Boxee Box for $100 and
hook that up to his TV. That's the simplest and cheapest way to get
him up and running.

I too use a PS3 to render my video on my TV, however, your Sony TV is
a rarity in the current market. If you take a look around, you'll find
that most TVs that claim to handle streaming video, really just handle
the Netflix video format and ignore the rest.
 
Wow, lots and lots of misinformation on this topic, enough that it
seems that I'm the only one who has ever streamed video to my TV
without a PC involved.

The DLNA specifies 3 things: a server, a renderer, and a controller.

You need all three parts to actually view a video file on your TV.

But here's the rub: you only need 1 part to be compliant with DLNA.

In the original poster's set up, the one that worked, here's what the
3 parts were.

Server = Router with USB hard drive
Renderer = Windows Media Player on his PC
Controller = TV

The original poster assumed that if he got rid of the "renderer", that
everything would just magically work, because everything was DLNA
compliant. But the router is only compatible with the "server" part of
the DLNA and the TV is only compatible with the "controller" part of
the DLNA. He still needs the "renderer" part in order for everything
to work (and his router ain't it; in fact, I don't know of a single
router that can do the "renderer" portion of the DLNA).

The most common way to get a standalone "renderer" is to build, buy,
or hack a device to provide it. On the buy side, just look up Boxee
Box or WD TV Live as your starting points.
Click to expand...


No, he should not need a pc period in his setup!!!!

The renderer part is in his TV!!!!! What he has built into his pc is basically
like what the WD LIVE settop boxes or BOXEE boxes do.

I stream directly from a NAS built by Buffallo directly thru my wireless to my
Sony widescreen TV and thru another older TV thru a PS3
 
You are wrong. His TV cannot render all of his video formats, because
he stated so himself (that it only handled the mpg format). Neither
can his router play video (no router can). Thus, he needs a third
device in his setup to do that rendering.
Click to expand...

The router just serves the video files. His TV decodes and plays them. He
shouldnt need a computer inbetween in his setup.


That's why he should just buy a WD TV Live or a Boxee Box for $100 and
hook that up to his TV. That's the simplest and cheapest way to get
him up and running.
Click to expand...

If he would just tell us his tv model, that would help. Why by another box
that does the exact same thing as whats probably built into his new tv?

I too use a PS3 to render my video on my TV, however, your Sony TV is
a rarity in the current market. If you take a look around, you'll find
that most TVs that claim to handle streaming video, really just handle
the Netflix video format and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

If a TV claims DLNA support, it can do much more than Netflix. And no , my
sony is not a rarity, the DLNA alliance is built up of most the major TV,
electronics, and media companies out there.
 
delta007bhd said:
Depending on how we use it. If we continue using our high
technology to rid the world of evil men and free all the world's
women from their husbands, that might happen.
Click to expand...

What, we're effectively just now catching up with 1920's communist
Russian divorce rates. . .God doesn't live here anymore? One out of
four still live at their parent's home because they can't afford
elsewhere. Marriages, however, no longer exceed a deference to
continued abstracts for living outside traditional regulations,
blessedly abiding in contractually recognized rites of cohabitation.
Is technology then attendant to capitalism, to that end, no different
than once communism and a more direct approach? Of course. But,
perhaps we have yet to free all the world's men from their wives, as
well;- evil, domineering men being implicit, androgynous
indistinctness then between sexes as well serves political expediency,
if not better a collusion to economic expediency, by reducing all
things similarly to a one size fits all society of simply productively
consuming entities. An amendable entity to the Age of the Conehead,
as it were. I suppose it hinges precisely upon how evil is defined.
After the fact is always more convenient retrospective judgment,
though ironically one seldom accorded just sway during a course of
fragmented means for civilizations to follow in course to their
ultimate demise. Didn't stop the Athenians from poisoning Socrates,
corrupter of the new and young, in their democratic wellspring from
the Golden Age, nor subsequently a Roman lack of moderation for primal
causes when it split under the dichotomy of inveighed interests
dispersed over the consummation of an ever-widening realm;- and thus
it came to inevitably to evolve to the capitalists, that in carrying
its tenets further to disperse Russia and China, so inexcusable to
have exhausted its own resources due to immoderation within
relativistic materialism. Just perhaps. Which would be to say if
technology were to offer little else merely beyond means to a
direction moral imperatives in no sense control, apart apparent ends
lacking conviction for divisive incentives solely to serve.
 
Flasherly said:
What, we're effectively just now catching up with 1920's
communist Russian divorce rates. . .God doesn't live here
anymore?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not... Some stuff in the Bible is for our own good.
I said YEAUS!!!
The stuff about an appropriate marriage (a relationship for
raising children) might be the best example. The Church of an Ever
Expanding Government claims that righteousness is the reason for
sticking its filthy hands deep into ordinary people's relationships.
But in fact that's just an excuse to further expand government
(whether they consciously realize it or not).

Democracy is great, until its filthy hands reach far into ordinary
people's personal relationships.
One out of four still live at their parent's home because they
can't afford elsewhere. Marriages, however, no longer exceed a
deference to continued abstracts for living outside traditional
regulations, blessedly abiding in contractually recognized rites
of cohabitation. Is technology then attendant to capitalism, to
that end, no different than once communism and a more direct
approach? Of course. But, perhaps we have yet to free all the
world's men from their wives, as well;-
Click to expand...

The use of high technology to force our ever-expanding government
doctrine on everybody else is the problem. The world cannot stop
us from sinking, but it can stop us from forcing our government on
them, even if that means total world destruction.
evil, domineering men being implicit, androgynous indistinctness
then between sexes as well serves political expediency, if not
better a collusion to economic expediency, by reducing all
things similarly to a one size fits all society of simply
productively consuming entities.
Click to expand...

The same does not apply to the ruling class. They have traditional
marriages. Their wives take care of their children and their
husbands bring home the bacon.


--
 
Believe it or not... Some stuff in the Bible is for our own good.
I said YEAUS!!!
The stuff about an appropriate marriage (a relationship for
raising children) might be the best example. The Church of an Ever
Expanding Government claims that righteousness is the reason for
sticking its filthy hands deep into ordinary people's relationships.
But in fact that's just an excuse to further expand government
(whether they consciously realize it or not).

Democracy is great, until its filthy hands reach far into ordinary
people's personal relationships.
Click to expand...

Nice thing about ideologies, any of them, are relevant aspects to nice
things within, which well may be found and helpful in serving a
commonality of shared beliefs in practise. All such practises in
pragmatic form, those that tend to endure, exist as a just and fair
tolerance for reasoned concessions accorded wisdom. For instance,
when Gibbon, for ecumenical reasons, feared for his life for writing
The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire -- what he'd actually written
over some depth and scope (among a voluminous entity) concerned the
crux of early Christianity and an historical impart relative to by
Roman accounting. Upon which, he then deduced, not that were one
salient principal of Christian to arises, that such a behest would be
the institution of marriage, but rather a distinction he confered to
mercy. For daily affairs for the average Roman, spitting upon or
kicking aside those whom around misfortunes readily relegated to a
wayside ditch, the practise was as commonplace as owning a slave.
Marriage comes from a state of conciliation between a repentant
Emperor Constantine, Paul the Apostle, as an investiture of Arthurian
romanticism.
The same does not apply to the ruling class. They have traditional
marriages. Their wives take care of their children and their
husbands bring home the bacon.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do, or at least half by way of just recompensation when
failure occurs among token societal debutantes. Which then have the
contemporary trappings of a three-ring circus in full swing for months
on end, as milks by a horn of plenty skewered upon national media
interests. Hence the prenuptial and other forms and sundry rites
consequently serve for attentive audiences as diluted alternatives to
cohabitation. An eroding stigma to references which are at odds from
formerly fashionable beliefs that marriage is a ticket to the destiny,
on the contractual omnibus of a state of morally ethical conduct
between sexes.
 
I use the remote control of the Blu-ray that connects to my router with the
wifi dongle to display the menu and navigate to home network (DLNA).

Blu-ray model: PANASONIC SC-BT230EG-K
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/SCBT730.PDF

TV model: PHILIPS 37PFL5405H/12
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?slg=en&scy=nl&ctn=37PFL540
5H/12
Click to expand...

After looking thru both manual neither of your devices are DNLA or uPnP
capable. Your only hope is to get a WD Live or something like that.
 
I use the remote control of the Blu-ray that connects to my router with the wifi dongle to display the menu and navigate to home network (DLNA).

Blu-ray model: PANASONIC SC-BT230EG-K
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/SCBT730.PDF

TV model: PHILIPS 37PFL5405H/12
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?slg=en&scy=nl&ctn=37PFL5405H/12
Click to expand...

The documentation on that TV, is pretty bad.

I couldn't find any mention of Wifi.

One doc has a picture of an Ethernet
(network) connector, the other does not.

The thick manual has no tech info.

The flyer says this, but only with respect to USB playback.
(Plugging a USB hard drive into the side of the TV.)

"Multimedia Applications
-----------------------

Multimedia connections: USB
Picture Playback Formats: JPEG <--- still pictures
Music Playback Formats: MP3, WMA (v2 up to v9.2), AAC
Video Playback Formats:
Codec support: H264/MPEG-4 AVC
MPEG-1
MPEG-2
MPEG-4
WMV9/VC1
Containers: AVI
MKV <--- ( Matroska )

A video container, is a thing that contains metadata
describing the movie, while the video and audio track
are stuffed inside. A container can handle many formats.
The Codec list hints at some things that can be inside.

I'm thinking I'd need to be sitting in front of this
TV set, to have any clue what it's actually capable of.
The documentation has that queasy "generic" feel to it,
like nobody gave a damn whether the manual was accurate
or not.

Philips also offers the option, of downloading the
"open source" portion of the TV design. When they reuse
FOSS software in a product, they're required (by virtue of
paying nothing for it), to offer any modifications they've
made to the source, for download. In this case, it might be
a Linux kernel for inside the TV set. But unfortunately,
this route will *not* tell you how the TV works. The
thing is, if there was a DLNA/uPnP capability, it would be
proprietary software run as a separate module, apart from
the Linux kernel. And they would not be required to give you
source. So "building a TV manual", using source code as
an information source, is bound to leave you frustrated.

Based on the documentation I can see on the Philips site, the
most expedient way to view computer movies, appears to be
by plugging a USB external drive into the side of the TV set.
I can't see instructions for any other mode of operation
for the TV (in the DLNA/streaming sense). They don't even
mention what file systems might be supported on the USB
external drive. (Options would be FAT32 and NTFS for example.)

Your Bluray player, would be a source of rendered output,
over an HDMI cable. The on-screen display and usage of the
Bluray remote, allows controlling what the Bluray plays.
This has nothing to do with "computer" at all.

If the Bluray is networked, it may allow a computer to browse
something on a Bluray disc, but again, that doesn't
"get us over to the TV set". The TV set can play things,
but the manual only mentions USB, no network references
I could find. If the TV doesn't "play for itself", it
relies on an external device to send a video signal over
HDMI or YPbPr, and that's a "rendering device".

I could only change my opinion, bu seeing evidence the TV
actually supports computer networks, such as Wifi or
Ethernet (8 pin connector RJ-45 type). The problem with
Wifi, is there might be no external evidence it is inside
the TV set. While with Ethernet, we can check for an RJ-45.
If the TV has Wifi, then your Wifi router, in the DHCP section,
may contain evidence that the TV got itself a dynamic IP address,
and that would help prove it has Wifi. But me using pictures of
the back of the unit, wouldn't enable me to verify WiFi exists.
They could be using patch antennas inside the plastic casing
of the TV set.

(Picture of RJ-45 for Ethernet connections... 8 gold wires.)

http://media.digikey.com/photos/Tyco Corcom Photos/RJ45-8LCT2-B.jpg

Paul
 
The router just serves the video files. His TV decodes and plays them. He
shouldnt need a computer inbetween in his setup.




If he would just tell us his tv model, that would help. Why by another box
that does the exact same thing as whats probably built into his new tv?



If a TV claims DLNA support, it can do much more than Netflix. And no , my
sony is not a rarity, the DLNA alliance is built up of most the major TV,
electronics, and media companies out there.
Click to expand...

Exactly. OP needs to tell us his TV model. This example is what
Samsung TVs equipped with 'media 2.0' support can handle:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/learningresources/media2.0/usb_faq.html
In fact, many models have a USB2 port which can play those formats
directly from a USB flash memory stick or hard drive.
 
Flasherly said:
Nice thing about ideologies, any of them, are relevant aspects
to nice things within, which well may be found and helpful in
serving a commonality of shared beliefs in practise. All such
practises in pragmatic form, those that tend to endure, exist as
a just and fair tolerance for reasoned concessions accorded
wisdom. For instance, when Gibbon, for ecumenical reasons,
feared for his life for writing The Decline & Fall of the Roman
Empire -- what he'd actually written over some depth and scope
(among a voluminous entity) concerned the crux of early
Christianity and an historical impart relative to by Roman
accounting. Upon which, he then deduced, not that were one
salient principal of Christian to arises, that such a behest
would be the institution of marriage, but rather a distinction
he confered to mercy. For daily affairs for the average Roman,
spitting upon or kicking aside those whom around misfortunes
readily relegated to a wayside ditch, the practise was as
commonplace as owning a slave. Marriage comes from a state of
conciliation between a repentant Emperor Constantine, Paul the
Apostle, as an investiture of Arthurian romanticism.


Indeed they do, or at least half by way of just recompensation
when failure occurs among token societal debutantes. Which then
have the contemporary trappings of a three-ring circus in full
swing for months on end, as milks by a horn of plenty skewered
upon national media interests.
Click to expand...

We only see what the one-way media wants us to see.

The ruling class are using ordinary women/girls. They teach girls
that they can be superior to their male counterparts. But the
reason they do that is to promote sex warfare in order to stay on
top of the class warfare. It's an effort to subjugate ordinary
people. Some of the laws allegedly to protect women are obviously
actually just to subjugate ordinary men. Women cannot see past the
carrot the ruling class dangles in front of their noses.

Fortunately, current Republicans are balking at reauthorizing the
Violence Against Women Act. I sincerely hope they stand their
ground. The VAWA has nothing to do with helping ordinary women,
its doctrine from the Church of an Ever Expanding Government.
And those in power don't practice what they preach.

The more you look into the matter, the more you can see that
"women's rights" and "gender equality" is classic "divide and
conquer".

--
 
The more you look into the matter, the more you can see that
"women's rights" and "gender equality" is classic "divide and
conquer".
Click to expand...

Allan Bloom -- has a simplistic approach for being down on education
dropping the ball. If simplicity is then the least common denominator
-- and everything of former value is relativistic -- yes, the door's
wide open to anything other than an entitled class whose value system
or consequent qualifications may not coincide with a superficial,
however contemporary, rendition of a level playing field entitled to
one and all alike.
 
Flasherly said:
Allan Bloom -- has a simplistic approach for being down on
education dropping the ball. If simplicity is then the least
common denominator -- and everything of former value is
relativistic -- yes, the door's wide open to anything other than
an entitled class whose value system or consequent
qualifications may not coincide with a superficial, however
contemporary, rendition of a level playing field entitled to one
and all alike.
Click to expand...

I hear ya!
 
Back
Top