topic Re: Video Quality in Arlo Pro 2

Pro 2 Video Quality

NewUser1946 — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:10:35 GMT

Hi,

We just recently installed the arlo pro 2 and have been a little disappointed. I’m not sure if our expectations were too high but the video quality just doesn’t seem to be there. We had a hard time identifying faces and had to basically mount the camera right above the door in order to identify faces. The night vision also was very poor. I will upload a file. Please tell me if there’s something I need to change or if this is the norm.

PS our quality is sent to the middle option of best quality and battery life.

Re: Video Quality

NewUser1946 — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 01:20:56 GMT

Here is a screen capture of what I’m referring to. This is a picture of 3 bear cubs caught at 2:30 AM. It’s so difficult to see, I numbered them.

It won’t let me upload.

Re: Video Quality

st_shaw — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 02:41:11 GMT

You should set the quality to the highest level, but my experience is similar so it's probably the norm. The Pro2s compress the signal quite a bit to save bandwidth and battery life. Couple that with a very wide field of view, and it means the subject has to be close to resolve fine details. The Pro2s don't have great light sensitivity either, so at night it's even more difficult to resolve details unless you have a supplemental light source.

Re: Video Quality

NewUser1946 — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 08:39:34 GMT

I thought the compression was the problem. But that’s really disappointing. How am I (or authorities) supposed to identify someone? I am going to have to reconsider the Arlo for what we’re looking to do with it. I really wish I could get this image uploaded.

Re: Video Quality

Dannybear — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 08:57:41 GMT

As a thought. could the cameras take still frames at one second intervals to eliminate the compression requirement. Using night mode for me is useless to try and resolve a persons features as the move about, since the compression blurs the detail.

Re: Video Quality

jguerdat — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 12:02:06 GMT

A wide angle lens (130 degrees) will always make it hard to get details at a distance. The video is only 2 megapixels max and then compression on top of it. Add distance so the subject is smaller in the view and you simply will never be able to zoom much to see details. Download a fisheye image from the internet, resize it to 2 megapixels and zoom in - it's exactly the same thing.

The only way to get details is to have the camera closer to the action so the subject is larger in the first place.

Re: Video Quality

NewUser1946 — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 14:25:58 GMT

Thank you for the replies. I guess I don’t understand the rave ratings on this camera/system. If I can’t identify anything, then what’s the point?

Re: Video Quality

jdamp — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:14:06 GMT

I too am a new user and very underwhelmed with the video quality. I have my cameras set to highest quality and still looks pretty bad. I can see chroma issues and pixilation on the images that shouldn’t exist on a 1080p signal. Looking at the files I can see that these are 1072p and low bit rate, day time records at 23fps and night 15fps.

I think if I had to do it again I would go with a local storage system that has notifications. I was literally just looking on amazon and saw there is the Amcrest and Reolink systems both POE and wireless options. Amcrest has a 1440p 4MP wireless and Reolink as a 5MP 1728p wireless camera. Unlike the Arlo, both systems allow you to connect the wireless cameras to you wifi network. Both systems also allow you to use them stand alone or connected to a POE NVR. Checkout the video samples in the reviews man those videos look amazing. I’ve only had the Arlo system about a week and I’m debating packing it all up and returning to amazon.

Don’t get me wrong there are a number of good features to the Arlo system but for me the cons are out weighing the pros.

Re: Video Quality

NewUser1946 — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:22:48 GMT

Agreed! I’m about to return it all.

I’m wondering if plugging them into a power source rather than running on batteries would make a difference. thoughts?

Re: Video Quality

jdamp — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:30:24 GMT

All but one of mine are plugged in and I purchased long cables and power adapter for each one. So no plugging them in doesn't help. It just gives you the 3 second timewarp for motion activation. I feel that this feature should be more like 10 seconds.

Re: Video Quality

jguerdat — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:21:29 GMT

You're going to have to find a camera that has >2 megapixels and/or a longer focal length (narrower FOV) to make it noticeably better. I note that many cameras are even moving to 180 degree FOV which will make things worse for IDing someone.

Camera placement may be the best solution.

Re: Video Quality

st_shaw — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:22:05 GMT

@NewUser1946 wrote:
I thought the compression was the problem. But that’s really disappointing. How am I (or authorities) supposed to identify someone? I am going to have to reconsider the Arlo for what we’re looking to do with it. I really wish I could get this image uploaded.

In the industry, the recommended minimum pixel density required to identify an unknown face is 250 pixels/meter. For a 1920x1080 pixel camera with a 110-degree FOV, the subject needs to be closer than 4 meters from the camera. This assumes decent lighting and compression. Lighting, compression, and motion can all impact this.

Set your expectations from there.