topic Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison in Arlo Pro

Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

plasmo — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 01:58:11 GMT

I made a quick video using both Original Arlo vs. the new Arlo Pro showing how much faster motion-detection capture is with the new Pro.

This was one of my biggest complaints and frustration in the original Arlo (how many times did you capture a leg in a video clip???).

As you can see, the Pro is MUCH better.

I made two quick examples of myself running across the scene, allowing both cameras to capture, at same settings.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

TomMac — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 03:21:47 GMT

Nice job...

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

RobertRosal — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 04:19:50 GMT

Really nice comparison.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

aWanderer — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:40:03 GMT

Just to clarify, is this showing the Arlo Pro starting capture MUCH sooner than the Arlo?

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

TomMac — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 18:19:38 GMT

yes

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

plasmo — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:51:45 GMT

aWanderer wrote:
Just to clarify, is this showing the Arlo Pro starting capture MUCH sooner than the Arlo?

Yes, it captures MUCH sooner than the original Arlo. So far, very pleased.

I also noticed that the Video color is more cooler and more natural in the Pro, versus the more warmer orange tint that the original camera gave.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

donttrustthem — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 06:44:20 GMT

Nice comparison. Is it done with both original and Pro camera attached to a NEW Pro base station? Or are both the original and the Pro cameras attached to an original base station?

Have also been wondering if the recording on the new Pro camera starts quicker AND is also then faster again if it sends to the USB while it waits to connect to the internet/arlo cloud.

Just wondering. Thanks

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

aWanderer — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 06:49:02 GMT

Sold all mine and went with wired Hikvision cameras. Very happy with these. Not that Arlo was bad, just very limited; can't record 24x7, motion detection and startup to live view way to slow for me. Hikvision are $159 each and functionality is FULL.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

plasmo — Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:04:15 GMT

donttrustthem wrote:
Nice comparison. Is it done with both original and Pro camera attached to a NEW Pro base station? Or are both the original and the Pro cameras attached to an original base station?

This was done using the New Pro base station.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

TomBastedo — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:52:10 GMT

I bought the Arlo 6 camera set. 2 indoor (not using at the moment) and 4 Arlo wireless for outdoor. I am finding the time that it starts recording annoying. I wonder if adding an Arlo Pro will improve my situation since I would be adding it to the Arlo (non-pro) base station?

I'd really like to keep the wireless convenience but the delay makes the Arlo practically useless.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

aWanderer — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:09:15 GMT

Save your money. If it is a problem for you then Battery powered is not the solution for you I don't think. I was hopeful as well.

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

jguerdat — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:28:19 GMT

The Pro versions do improve the overall experience but the startup lag is due to the connection to the server being initiated. About 2 seconds lag is the best you will get. Are you seeing longer?

Re: Arlo vs. Arlo Pro motion capture video side-by-side comparison

TomBastedo — Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:38:15 GMT

I went to Best Buy yesterday (I hate them) and bought an Arlo Pro to add to my existing Arlo (non Pro cams and base) to test for myself if there is any difference in the the performance of the Arlo and Arlo Pro cameras. I was able to quickly add the Arlo Pro to the existing Arlo (non Pro) setup. I intentionally set it up this way to test to see if there is any performace difference in the 2 camera models.

Let me say unequivicolly that there is a major difference between the Arlo and the Arlo Pro. The Arlo Pro instantaneously begins recording, with no measurable lag time.

So in my opinion, the Arlo cameras are a waste of money. The Arlo Pros do what I need - begin recording the nanosecond motion is detected.

(imo) All the talk blaming networks, hitting the server is baloney. The lag time is a problem inherent to the Arlo camera, not network or server, etc.

I still like the setup, I will get another 3 Arlo Pro cameras today (the one I bought yesterday came with the Arlo Pro base - even though I told the urchin at Best Buy I only wanted camera)

I've owned my Arlo setup for 3 or 4 months now. I really do like the wireless concept. I've only been on this support site for less than a week, but I am finding, as with most sites like this, you really have to dig for the info you need because there are people that blow smoke.

It's too late for me, but going forward I will advise anyone considering to buy the Arlo Pro, not the Arlo. It's cheaper, but if you want to actually RECORD anything usefull, the Arlo is a waste of money.