How to watch videos from Laptop on 'TV with USB enabled set-top-box'.

[Anil Kagi]

Thank you for being with me, Jagabo.

Why is it necessary for the STB to have a DLNA client built in? If an application like Plex...

Because a DLNA client is required to display video from a DLNA server. Plex is a DLNA server.

Got it.

I thought when Plex streams AV to STB, the STB would accept the signal like it does with the regular incoming TV signal and transmit it to the TV.

Audio and Video aren't like water traveling over a dedicated pipe. They travel over a shared pipe and require specific electrical and software protocols, in this case DLNA.

Haha.

I researched a bit, you are right. The STB would require something like a RF signal, that can be transmitted through the coaxial cable. Right?

You know guys, before starting this thread, I was a moron, with respect to Signals or Transmission formats, types of slots and cables, etc. Now I am educated, a bit atleast, because of all you comapassionate educators. I really thank all you guys for the compassion, bestowed. Love you.

Are there converters too, that can convert a Digital signal transmitted from a computer into a RF signal? And cables that can connect between a HDMI slot and the coaxial slot? Since there seem to exist conevrters and transmission cables for every format to every other format, do they also exist? Just for knowledge sake.

I checked in the Mother board installation CD. I found an option to enable, that says "Using 'Easy Content Share', you can easily enjoy multimedia content from the connected DLNA devices in your home.". And it is enabled.

That means your laptop already has a DLNA server installed. You would connect to a DLNA client through wired Ethernet or WiFi (the "shared pipe").

What actually is a DLNA client? Software? Hardware? Or a combination of both? Asking for knowledge sake; I know this is over.

How to know, whether my laptop has the ability to convert to composite and output at the HDMI connector?

Your manual would say so. Or contact the laptop manufacturer.

Since my Laptop already has a monitor port, does it mean that an analog TV can be connected to it and used as a secondary monitor?

Only if your TV has a VGA port -- which it doesn't.

Though my TV does not have 15 pin D-SUB interface, can I use a '15 Pin VGA to 3 RCA Composite AV Cable Adapter', [like the one in the link given below] and connect my Laptop to the SDTV?

Just like the case with HDMI to composite cables, ads like that are there to steal your money. Read where it says "VGA to S-Video Cable will work with laptops and desktops with VGA cards that has TV-Out function capability through the VGA connector." Most people don't understand what that means -- the computer must output composite video, and line level stereo audio, at what looks like a VGA port. That's the small print they will refer you to when the device doesn't work with your laptop. And just like with HDMI to composite cables, there is no standard for composite video at a D15 connector. So in the off chance that your laptop supports it you would need the cable designed specifically for your laptop. Contact the laptop manufacturer to see if your laptop supports this feature.

Yes, I did it, after recieving your post. I had an online chat with Samsung support, and a phone conversation with their techies. They said, the computer does not have a TV out function that can do a analog transmission at the HDMI port. So that ends it. No?

Face it, you're going to need a standalone media player that supports a connected USB drive, SMB (Windows network shares), or DLNA.

Okay. Done, but I have this one last question, lingering in my head.

If not; is there any other PC Application that would transmit the HD AV from the Laptop by converting it into a form that the STB would readily accept like it accepts the regular incoming TV signal?

You would need software (and hardware?) that supports the specific protocol used by your STB.

You have rightly put a question mark there. The Hardware already exists. And we all have invested money on it. Only the software doesn't exist.

We have this scenario, here. I have demonstrated it graphically also, for a quick glance of the situation.

We have third party Applications for the benefit of the users, that can be installed on every major device that is highly consumed, like a PC or a Mobile-phone.

There is another device whose consumption is equally high. And that is the Set-top-box. But there are no, third party Applications for the benefit of the users that can be installed on the Set-top-box?



For example: We have third party 'media players' that can be installed on Windows, Linux, Mac, or Android devices. However, for a Set-top-box, there are no third party media players that can be installed on the Set-top-box. Moreover, a media player is already there in the STB, that can replay recorded videos. But alas, it cannot access videos placed on the USB. Knowledgeable members of the forum gave their valuable opinions. And it all came down to Propriety & media rights issues. The STB has been here for decades and it is a wonder that it hasn't evolved much. All it has been doing till now is convert & transmit. A very recent evolution is the ability to record & replay.

While there are the Propriety & media rights issues in other products like PCs & Mobile phones too, there, we have third party applications that can be installed on those devices, to expand their uses, to exploit the Hardware, in which money has been already invested. Why do restrictions exist on the better usability of equipments, that we invest our money into. PCs & Mobile phones, have become great utility devices. The STB also has every eligibility to become one. Is this the case, because of memory constraints? That shouldn't be. There is already the slot for the USB which can be inserted into the STB for recording TV programmes for viewing later. The same USB can be used for installing third party Applications like Media player, Video games, Browsers, Paint programs, Task schedulers, Business apps etc, like we do it on Android Mobile phones, or PCs. Why aren't there applications that can be installed on the USB of the STB, like we do on the mobile SD card and install apps.

Why there are no STB apps, like we have PC apps, Mobile apps?

This is the question, lingering in my mind. Isn't this an uncharted field, that needs to be discovered & evolved?

Thank you again Jagabo, for staying with me.

Regards.

[Anil Kagi]

Thank you for coming, Thewizard.

You can probably use a Vga breakout cable to supply a video signal to the TV

Do VGA to Caoax cables exist?

But you will need stereo audio cable with headphone jack on one end and rca plugs on the other end to get sound from notebook to tv, just like using a VCR
The tv had rca audio input jacks on it just for that reason

Since my TV has only the 3-composite slots, no VGA slot, as shown in image above, this is not possible, isn't it? Moreover, there is the signal format conversion issue.

Thank you Thewizard, for the input.

Regards

[Anil Kagi]

You can probably use a Vga breakout cable to supply a video signal to the TV
But you will need stereo audio cable with headphone jack on one end and rca plugs on the other end to get sound from notebook to tv, just like using a VCR
The tv had rca audio input jacks on it just for that reason

There are certainly 3.5 mm to RCA stereo cables that will work with the laptop's headphone jack to provide audio to the TV, but without any composite video to go along with that there is not much point in buying one.

jagabo and I already covered the problem of getting composite video from a laptop's VGA port.

Yes.

[Anil Kagi]

Face it, you're going to need a standalone media player that supports a connected USB drive, SMB (Windows network shares), or DLNA.

I agree. There are some small, relatively inexpensive media players with USB in and composite video out. The Micca Speck G2 is supposed to be a good one. There are also Android media players with composite out, LAN and WiFI which can probably run a Plex client or Kodi. Most of them cost more than a device that does not connect to a home network. I don't have a recommendation for one.

Yes, you are right. I checked on Amazon. The Micca Speck G2 costs, 40$, way above the cost of getting a converter. Thank you.

[Cornucopia]

The only STB apps are those proprietary apps designed by the STB makers. They may run embedded Linux, but it is likely a flavor/distro that was custom built for them - in order to explicitly support ONLY their box (incl. special BIOS/Firmware) and ONLY allowing their DRM'd files to play when properly authenticated. All closely-guarded secrets.

So, you'd need to reverse engineer the OS and the Encrypted FileSystem. Not gonna happen without H*U*G*E manhours (=$$$$). Not worth the effort. Particularly when you can just build an open-ended box with Win/Linux and a small HTPC hardware. That's what NUCs running Kodi do so well. No need to reinvent the wheel, just to please your curiosity.

You keep saying "it cannot access videos placed on the USB". No, it is designed to not recognize/access them. For a reason (theirs). They could have built in support if they wanted to, but they didn't want to (either economically or legally or both). Very possibly, the USB port was an afterthought to them.

But in the big picture, the STB (of any model/brand) was never built to be a "universal, general purpose" playback device. That domain belongs to GM players & HTPCs. Use the device appropriate for your needs.

Scott

[jagabo]

The Micca Speck G2 costs, 40$, way above the cost of getting a converter.

But it will deliver better quality without tearing.

[usually_quiet]

Thank you for coming, Thewizard.

You can probably use a Vga breakout cable to supply a video signal to the TV

Do VGA to Caoax cables exist?

If there is such a thing, it would be yet another product made for the sole purpose of separating a fool from his money.

Assuming this is a digital cable TV box, not IPTV box, you would need an appropriate modulator to convert the VGA or HDMI signal to whatever type of digital broadcast signal the cable box's tuner is designed to accept. Expect to spend between several hundreds and several thousands of dollars for such a device.

Every connection on your STB that can supply video is now covered. If you want a good picture, get a media player of some kind. If you want to take a chance that the picture will be unwatchable, get a cheap HDMI to composite converter or a cheap VGA to composite converter.

[usually_quiet]

Particularly when you can just build an open-ended box with Win/Linux and a small HTPC hardware. That's what NUCs running Kino do so well. No need to reinvent the wheel, just to please your curiosity.
Scott

Kino is a non-linear editor. Did you mean Kodi?

[Cornucopia]

Yes, my bad. I'll fix it...

Scott

[Anil Kagi]

Thank you for coming, Thewizard.

You can probably use a Vga breakout cable to supply a video signal to the TV

Do VGA to Caoax cables exist?

If there is such a thing, it would be yet another product made for the sole purpose of separating a fool from his money.

Assuming this is a digital cable TV box, not IPTV box, you would need an appropriate modulator to convert the VGA or HDMI signal to whatever type of digital broadcast signal the cable box's tuner is designed to accept. Expect to spend between several hundreds and several thousands of dollars for such a device.

Whoops.

Every connection on your STB that can supply video is now covered. If you want a good picture, get a media player of some kind. If you want to take a chance that the picture will be unwatchable, get a cheap HDMI to composite converter or a cheap VGA to composite converter.

Yes, practically every possibility was analysed and reasons provided. I can't thank you guys, enough, for providing this knowledgeable information.

Hats off to your patience, benevolence and empathy.

Love you all.

Regards.

[Anil Kagi]

Thank you Scott, for the valuable input. That was a lovely argument.

I am writing this, with a view that even though, a solution does not exist at the current time, to the issue being discussed, I and others who feel the same, could get a solution in the near future at least.

The only STB apps are those proprietary apps designed by the STB makers. They may run embedded Linux, but it is likely a flavor/distro that was custom built for them - in order to explicitly support ONLY their box (incl. special BIOS/Firmware) and ONLY allowing their DRM'd files to play when properly authenticated. All closely-guarded secrets.

What is the problem in allowing the users to install third party apps on the STB, and letting them use the box for whatever else it can be used for, since the users pay for it. It is simply a matter of installation of some Apps , which can be done with no extra cost, thanks to FOSS Apps. Of course, as you mentioned the STB is [or 'WAS INITIALLY'] meant only for transmission of TV signals to the user, but what is the problem in opening it to make it a utility box, rather than making it a simple transmitter-converter, [plus the record and replay is a recent added ability, which is really a great evolution, and shows signs of opening up, provided the makers decide to open up.]

I suppose this is neither a question of Rights nor Revenue. It is just a oversight and lack of care for the consumer. The manufacturers haven't cared to recognize the potential of the STB to evolve and gather greater abilities and be highly usefull to the consumer, because the user anyhow pays for the STB, even though it is a simple transmitter-converter, since users are in want of the TV channels. The manufacturers get back what they have invested in, [to manufacture just a simple transmitter-converter], even with an added profit. However the users are at loss, not getting the full benefits of what their money could potentially do. Isn't that the case?

So, you'd need to reverse engineer the OS and the Encrypted FileSystem. Not gonna happen without H*U*G*E manhours (=$$$$). Not worth the effort.

This could have been prevented, if the vast possibilities of the uses of the STB were cared to be taken into consideration, early on, initially.

Particularly when you can just build an open-ended box with Win/Linux and a small HTPC hardware. That's what NUCs running Kodi do so well.

But that is not like enhancing the capabilities of the STB, that has its own place in the domain.

No need to reinvent the wheel, just to please your curiosity.

You keep saying "it cannot access videos placed on the USB". No, it is designed to not recognize/access them. For a reason (theirs). They could have built in support if they wanted to, but they didn't want to (either economically or legally or both). Very possibly, the USB port was an afterthought to them.

But in the big picture, the STB (of any model/brand) was never built to be a "universal, general purpose" playback device.

No, no. IMHO, this is not the question of my curiosity. This is the question of 'Transitional issues'. A couple of days back, I went and checked the TVs of a few of my friends. I checked on three TVs. Among them, two TVs, one from Sony and another from Samsung had only HDMI and USB slots. However one TV, that belonged to Videocon, had almost all kinds of slots; HDMI, Composite, VGA, S-video, and RF.

When we go higher up the ladder of technological development, the transition does not and cannot take place simultaneously among all the strata of the consumers. If the transition is suddenly forced expecting it to become total everywhere, those who are slow to transition [which is a matter of subjective choice and possibility], are deprived of their status quos plus prospects. Moreover, as a result, their independence is lost.

The Videocon company has taken the transitional issue into consideration. And the fact also need to be taken into account that, the transition in TV broadcasting from analog to digital is also not total, even to date. There are innumerable TV channels which still broadcast analog signal. And certainly, it would benefit the Videocon company and their consumers too. So this ultimately boils down to consumer care, not DRM, Revenue, man-hours. And not even my curiosity .

That domain belongs to GM players . . .

What are GM players? I checked the web. Didn't find information.

Thank you again Scott, for your valuable input. I loved your Avatar, too.

Regards

[usually_quiet]

I am not going to engage in a discussion as to why DRM is inconvenient, or ineffective, or morally wrong. There have been many such discussions here to date. I'm not interested in being part of another.

The fact is that content providers and content producers insist that DRM be used. That is the reason why cable boxes are closed, proprietary systems. It discourages subscribers from hacking their cable box to disable DRM, or to get services for free, as well as discouraging experimentation with adding new features.

On a basic level, a cable box only needs to be able to deliver programming and services that the provider wants to sell to its subscribers. The cable service provider doesn't require the cable box to do more than that. Adding a media player only increases their support costs and the price the customer pays for using their service. It won't allow the cable provider to sell additional services.

Adding the ability to function as a decent media player would raise the price subscribers pay for their cable box all by itself. A better CPU, more storage, and more memory may be needed for the cable box to support media playback using software. A cable box only needs a small number of codecs to fulfill its content delivery function and play the content it records. More codecs would be needed for a USB media player with support for a reasonable number of audio and video formats. Commercial hardware media players cannot use most codecs for free without the maker being sued, so someone has to pay a licensing fee for each codec the cable box uses.

My guess is that only a percentage of subscribers want to use their cable box as a media player and some who might want that would be unwilling to pay anything extra to get it.

This is the end for me. I find these sorts of BS discussions tiresome.

[jagabo]

And the last thing cable companies want is for their subscribers to discover other sources of content. Those subscribers may eventually decide they don't need the cable company. The cable company's primary objective is to keep you paying your $200 cable bill each month.

[Anil Kagi]

That was fantastic, Usually_quite.

It was a more convincing, accurate, clear concept.

You hit the nail on its head.

I am not going to engage in a discussion as to why DRM is inconvenient, or ineffective, or morally wrong. There have been many such discussions here to date. I'm not interested in being part of another.

The fact is that content providers and content producers insist that DRM be used. That is the reason why cable boxes are closed, proprietary systems. It discourages subscribers from hacking their cable box to disable DRM, or to get services for free, as well as discouraging experimentation with adding new features.

On a basic level, a cable box only needs to be able to deliver programming and services that the provider wants to sell to its subscribers. The cable service provider doesn't require the cable box to do more than that. Adding a media player only increases their support costs and the price the customer pays for using their service. It won't allow the cable provider to sell additional services.

Adding the ability to function as a decent media player would raise the price subscribers pay for their cable box all by itself. A better CPU, more storage, and more memory may be needed for the cable box to support media playback using software. A cable box only needs a small number of codecs to fulfill its content delivery function and play the content it records. More codecs would be needed for a USB media player with support for a reasonable number of audio and video formats. Commercial hardware media players cannot use most codecs for free without the maker being sued, so someone has to pay a licensing fee for each codec the cable box uses.

My guess is that only a percentage of subscribers want to use their cable box as a media player and some who might want that would be unwilling to pay anything extra to get it.

This is the end for me. I find these sorts of BS discussions tiresome.

That makes the STB, a peripheral device of the Distributor. It is not the device of the Consumer.

The money the consumer spends on the STB, is to get just, a window to the Distributor's content, but not to get a personal utility device, as earlier pointed out by, Scott.

"The consumer is at the mercy of the Distributor for any enhancements into the STB."

So that ends the discussion.

I thank all the knowledgeable people, who took pains to contribute their valuable know-how and provide me with highly convincing information.

That was nice of you guys.

And thank you to, VideoHelp Forum also. You have a great knowledgeable, sensitive, compassionate and vibrant community on your platform. Good luck to you.

Thank you.

Regards.

[Anil Kagi]

And the last thing cable companies want is for their subscribers to discover other sources of content. Those subscribers may eventually decide they don't need the cable company. The cable company's primary objective is to keep you paying your $200 cable bill each month.

Ha ha.

[Anil Kagi]

An after thought; Usually_quite.

Adding the ability to function as a decent media player would raise the price subscribers pay for their cable box all by itself. A better CPU, more storage, and more memory may be needed for the cable box to support media playback using software. A cable box only needs a small number of codecs to fulfill its content delivery function and play the content it records. More codecs would be needed for a USB media player with support for a reasonable number of audio and video formats. Commercial hardware media players cannot use most codecs for free without the maker being sued, so someone has to pay a licensing fee for each codec the cable box uses.

My guess is that only a percentage of subscribers want to use their cable box as a media player and some who might want that would be unwilling to pay anything extra to get it.

Even while the consumer is at the mercy of the Distributor for any enhancements into the STB;

if the makers of the STB decide to give more value to the consumer, they could make provisions to place a "Shared Folder" [of sorts] into the USB when the user gets the USB ready, for first use. And that folder is where the users are allowed to copy-paste their videos after converting them to appropriate formats, that can be recognised by the STB for playback. This way no extra cost is incurred, for CPU power required for the conversion processes, and other codec costs etc and the STB becomes more useful to the users.

Isn't this feasible; a win-win for both the makers & consumers?

Thank you

Regards

[jagabo]

if the makers of the STB decide to give more value to the consumer, they could make provisions to place a "Shared Folder" [of sorts] into the USB when the user gets the USB ready, for first use. And that folder is where the users are allowed to copy-paste their videos after converting them to appropriate formats, that can be recognised by the STB for playback. This way no extra cost is incurred

There are extra support costs. They don't want to spend all day on the phone with you walking you through how to convert your videos to work on their STB. And again, they are not interested in helping you find, or deal with, other sources of content.

[usually_quiet]

if the makers of the STB decide to give more value to the consumer, they could make provisions to place a "Shared Folder" [of sorts] into the USB when the user gets the USB ready, for first use. And that folder is where the users are allowed to copy-paste their videos after converting them to appropriate formats, that can be recognised by the STB for playback. This way no extra cost is incurred

There are extra support costs. They don't want to spend all day on the phone with you walking you through how to convert your videos to work on their STB. And again, they are not interested in helping you find, or deal with, other sources of content.

Even putting the cost of support aside, adding any new function to the cable box would not be free. It would at the very least require a change to the cable box's software, which cannot happen without the cable box's maker and/or cable service provider paying one or more of their programmers to do the work.

...and I agree that cable service providers have no interest in and nothing to gain financially by giving their users unpaid access to outside content.
,