topic Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update in Arlo Pro 2

Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 21:51:11 GMT

My video quality has drastically reduced after the firmware update in May. Chat support was not very useful. I was finally told to send 1 camera (I have 3) and they will send a new one after they receive mine. I declined It appears that this is affecting many but Arlo has not found a solution yet. Arlo Pro 2 never had 1080p quality but it was decent. Now I can barely recognize my own face! Any tips?

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:36:33 GMT

@ArloUserUSA wrote:

Any tips?

I would have stayed engaged with support myself. Even if the replacement camera didn't help, you'd be able to continue working with them until you got to the root cause of the problem.

FWIW, I do have two Pro-2s in my camera mix, and I have not seen this issue with either of them.

Are you seeing this in live streaming, recordings, or both? Is there any sign of corrupted video (pixelation, freezes, etc)?

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:42:46 GMT

Issue is with the firmware. I cant really force them to change it. What is your Pro 2/Hub firmware? Issue is with live and recording. Video is not corrupted. Just poor quality like watching an old home video.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 21:16:54 GMT

@ArloUserUSA wrote:

What is your Pro 2/Hub firmware?

My Pro-2s are running 1.125.13.0_31717. They are connected to a VMB5000r4 base which is running 1.14.0.7_95_8e49ec9.

It could be an issue with the base I guess, but we are probably all running the same camera firmware.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 22:41:44 GMT

@StephenB My camera is identical but base is VMB400r3 with firmware 1.14.1.1_2913_78b189a.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ShayneS — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 17:24:10 GMT

Have you tried contacting customer support regarding this issue? I have attached the link here for you - Arlo Tech Support

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:05:03 GMT

Yes. There offered to send me a replacement camera. But I have to ship my camera 1st. This is a strange business practice. I declined the offer.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:54:09 GMT

Video is never 1080. It is low quality from 1st frame to the last. This camera can never be advertised as 1080. It is more like 480.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:23:03 GMT

@ArloUserUSA wrote:

Video is never 1080.

That is incorrect. If you analyze the video, you'll find it is in fact recorded at 1080p. Details on the audio and video from one of my files are below - you'll see the resolution is 1920x1080 (1080p).

However, that doesn't mean that the video is always sharp/clear. The video bitrate is quite low, and too much compression will blur out the details in the video - especially if there is a lot of motion. It'd be better if they had an option for a higher bitrate (and also if they had an option to always use HEVC in the ultra/pro3, and not limit HEVC to 2K or 4K).

Format : MPEG-4 Format profile : Base Media Codec ID : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41) File size : 1.08 MiB Duration : 11 s 401 ms Overall bit rate : 794 kb/s Video ID : 1 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L4 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=40 Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 11 s 401 ms Bit rate : 735 kb/s Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16:9 Frame rate mode : Variable Frame rate : 19.998 FPS Minimum frame rate : 18.182 FPS Maximum frame rate : 21.739 FPS Color space : YUV Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 Bit depth : 8 bits Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.018 Stream size : 1 023 KiB (93%) Color range : Full Color primaries : BT.709 Transfer characteristics : BT.709 Matrix coefficients : BT.709 Audio ID : 2 Format : AAC Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Format profile : LC Codec ID : 40 Duration : 11 s 207 ms Bit rate mode : Constant Bit rate : 56.0 kb/s Channel(s) : 2 channels Channel(s)_Original : 1 channel Channel positions : Front: C Sampling rate : 16.0 kHz Frame rate : 15.625 FPS (1024 spf) Compression mode : Lossy Stream size : 76.6 KiB (7%) Default : Yes Alternate group : 1

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:35:03 GMT

Yes. I meant my arlo video doesnt look like any movie on TV that is 1080.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:50:57 GMT

@ArloUserUSA wrote:

Yes. I meant my arlo video doesnt look like any movie on TV that is 1080.

That I agree with. 1080p movies are streamed at much higher bitrates. Netflix for example uses about 5 mbps. BluRay can go up to 40 mbps.

I don't think Arlo can go as high as 5 mbps (given they need to handle 5 streams per base simultaneously). But I think it would be good if they had an option to run 1080p at 3 mbps on the Ultra/Pro-3 bases (which can do that at 2K/4K).

And use HEVC all the time if the camera supports it. HEVC at 3 mbps looks about the same as AVC at 6 mbps.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

User_in_Sweden — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:38:24 GMT

Same issue here. Video quality from all three of my Pro 2 cameras has become much worse over time, without making any changes to the installation, so I guess that Arlo has simply moved to heavier video compression. No point in having a high-resolution camera if the recorded video quality is nevertheless low. Based on previous threads, it also seems that there is no interest from Arlo to fix the problem.

This also raises some doubt as to whether subsequent products (Ultra etc) will go the same way.

I attach a screen shot comparison between March 2018 and September 2019 (scaled down due to forum limitations). Note the detail of the running deer (2018), whereas I was unable to read the license plate of the hardly moving car (2019).

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:56:20 GMT

@User_in_Sweden wrote:

... so I guess that Arlo has simply moved to heavier video compression ...

I suggest checking the codec (HEVC vs AVC), the bitrate, and the resolution of both videos with MediaInfoXP ( https://www.videohelp.com/software/MediaInfoXP ). This particular package doesn't include the adware that is in the main MediaInfo installer.

That will give you more info on the compression (and whether it is changing over time).

FWIW, it's better to look at similar scenes for these comparisons; rather than scenes that are completely different.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:48:12 GMT

I do believe the files are compressed to a low bit rate to save space on Arlo servers. And I dont expect Arlo to fix this issue any time soon. Not sure what options we have besides switch to a different brand.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

Beef — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:39:43 GMT

I refused a replacement at first because they wanted my credit card details as collateral, they eventually relented and sent me a replacement without me providing card details or returning my old cam first so they can do it if they wish.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:25:02 GMT

@ArloUserUSA wrote:

I do believe the files are compressed to a low bit rate to save space on Arlo servers.

Well, if you have files over a long period of time, you can see whether the bitrate has changed. If it has, then you have evidence (and not just speculation).

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

User_in_Sweden — Tue, 03 Dec 2019 13:39:03 GMT

Thanks StephenB for suggesting MediaInfoXP. Below the output based on the respective March 2018 and September 2019 videos. Even though bitrate and framerate differ, I don't find the differences as striking as I had expected. Perhaps there is someone better qualified than me to judge this. As regards the suggestion to make the comparison based on similar scenes, I'm afraid I'm unable to roll back time :-). But I do agree that it would have been a more fair comparison.

Here's March 2018:

General
Complete name                            : C:\Users\Ola\Desktop\Temp\March 2018.mp4
Format                                   : MPEG-4
Format profile                           : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID                                 : mp42 (mp42/isom)
File size                                : 1.24 MiB
Duration                                 : 8 s 647 ms
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 1 200 kb/s
Encoded date                             : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:06
Tagged date                              : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:15

Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                           : High@L4
Format settings                          : CABAC / 1 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC                   : Yes
Format settings, Reference frames        : 1 frame
Format settings, GOP                     : M=1, N=48
Codec ID                                 : avc1
Codec ID/Info                            : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                 : 8 s 647 ms
Bit rate                                 : 1 140 kb/s
Width                                    : 16 pixels
Original width                           : 1 920 pixels
Height                                   : 32 pixels
Original height                          : 1 072 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate mode                          : Variable
Frame rate                               : 24.055 FPS
Minimum frame rate                       : 23.810 FPS
Maximum frame rate                       : 24.390 FPS
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 92.584
Stream size                              : 1.18 MiB (95%)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:07
Tagged date                              : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:14
Color range                              : Full
Color primaries                          : BT.709
Transfer characteristics                 : BT.709
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.709
Codec configuration box                  : avcC

Audio
ID                                       : 3
Format                                   : AAC LC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID                                 : mp4a-40-2
Duration                                 : 8 s 577 ms
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 56.0 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 55.2 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 1 channel
Channel layout                           : C
Sampling rate                            : 16.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 15.625 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 58.6 KiB (5%)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:07
Tagged date                              : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:14

Other
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : System
Codec ID                                 : mp4s-01
Duration                                 : 1 ms
Encoded date                             : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:07
Tagged date                              : UTC 2018-03-23 14:14:15

And here's Sept 2019:

General
Complete name                            : C:\Users\Ola\Desktop\Temp\Sept 2019.mp4
Format                                   : MPEG-4
Format profile                           : Base Media
Codec ID                                 : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size                                : 7.90 MiB
Duration                                 : 1 min 0 s
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 1 100 kb/s
Movie name                               : 2019-09-29-18:14:03
Grouping                                 : 52M17B7PAEA75
Composer                                 : Arlo Technologies, Inc
Description                              : Arlo Local Recording (Motion)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03
Tagged date                              : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03
Writing application                      : Lavf58.12.100

Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                           : High@L4
Format settings                          : CABAC / 1 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC                   : Yes
Format settings, Reference frames        : 1 frame
Codec ID                                 : avc1
Codec ID/Info                            : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                 : 1 min 0 s
Bit rate                                 : 1 041 kb/s
Width                                    : 1 920 pixels
Height                                   : 1 072 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate mode                          : Variable
Frame rate                               : 20.602 FPS
Minimum frame rate                       : 11.905 FPS
Maximum frame rate                       : 24.390 FPS
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.025
Stream size                              : 7.47 MiB (95%)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03
Tagged date                              : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03
Color range                              : Full
Color primaries                          : BT.709
Transfer characteristics                 : BT.709
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.709
Codec configuration box                  : avcC

Audio
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : AAC LC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID                                 : mp4a-40-2
Duration                                 : 1 min 0 s
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 56.0 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 128 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 1 channel
Channel layout                           : C
Sampling rate                            : 16.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 15.625 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 411 KiB (5%)
Default                                  : Yes
Alternate group                          : 1
Encoded date                             : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03
Tagged date                              : UTC 2019-09-29 16:14:03

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Tue, 03 Dec 2019 21:50:13 GMT

How did you manage that? They wouldn't agree to send me a replacement before I would send mine to them.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

StephenB — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:53:15 GMT

@User_in_Sweden wrote:

Complete name                            : C:\Users\Ola\Desktop\Temp\March 2018.mp4
Overall bit rate                         : 1 200 kb/s
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable

Video
Bit rate                                 : 1 140 kb/s

Frame rate                               : 24.055 FPS
Minimum frame rate                       : 23.810 FPS
Maximum frame rate                       : 24.390 FPS

So 1,140 kb/s. Frame rate is variable (though close enough to 24 FPS not to matter). I'm thinking that the deer was moving through the scene during the entire clip, so the frame rate stayed near the max.

Bit rate is also variable, so the actual bit rate will depend on the scene.

Looking at the same details in the second recording:

@User_in_Sweden wrote:

General
Complete name                            : C:\Users\Ola\Desktop\Temp\Sept 2019.mp4
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 1 100 kb/s

Video

Bit rate                                 : 1 041 kb/s

Frame rate                               : 20.602 FPS
Minimum frame rate                       : 11.905 FPS
Maximum frame rate                       : 24.390 FPS

The video bitrate is nearly the same (about 100 kb/s less). Generally you can't see bitrate drops that small (in most situations you won't see any subjective quality difference until the rate changes by about 25%).

The more substantial difference is in the frame rate - much more variable in the second clip. I am thinking that is due to the difference in the scenes - that the longer, second clip includes some segments where there is little or no motion. That could also explain the bit rate difference.

So I am not seeing evidence here that Arlo is reducing the bitrate to save storage costs. It looks more like scene-specific differences that the variable-rate encoder handled a bit differently. We'd need a lot more samples to accurately measure the average bit rate, and see if that changed or not.

It is of course possible that changes in the encoding algorithm might have reduced the quality in some scenes. It is difficult to make quality real-time encodings at low rates, and all encoders will handle some scenes better than others.

If the encoder makes poor decisions (sub-optimal motion vectors, suboptimal prediction mode for the blocks, etc), the quality will go down even if the bitrate doesn't. There is a battery life trade-off here - pruning the options that the encoder evaluates is one way to reduce power use (and increase battery life). But the encoding quality can suffer if you aren't very careful in how you do that.

Re: Poor video quality after May firmware update

ArloUserUSA — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:00:15 GMT

I noticed that my latest videos are better and after investigating saw that there was a firmware update last month for my base station. I am not sure if the quality is back to what is was but for now it is manageable.

Bitrate is now 870 kb/s and frame rate is around 23.5