topic Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then? in Arlo Q

So... How is ARLO-Q then?

ShockwavePyro — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:52:50 GMT

Hi all.... how about a report from all those ARLO-Q users out there then? We in the UK are still awaiting release.... so should we be excited? any major issues experienced? Should we buy one?

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Hula_Rock — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:06:24 GMT

I will be first to say it......

For an indoor monitoring system, it great. Just wish that They had an outdoor version of Arlo Q

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

jguerdat — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:46:59 GMT

^ +1.

The extra wide angle lens makes it problematic for distance identification. I do like the extra resolution and the ability to see virtually the whole room.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and the pixel-based as well as sound motion detection.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

TomMac — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:36:39 GMT

Will agree with above....

Pixel zone detect, higer rez ( better zoom if needed ),sound detect with 2way audio. ( tested audio on 3g and still worked with delay )

And, as a pay option, 24/7 timeline record which is great for a businesses that need that type of recording ( called CVR ).

For me the only two downs are FOV to wide for me ( minor gripe ) and need weather proof model too.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

mep123 — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:39:43 GMT

So far my experience with the Arlo Q has been all positive...easy setup and integration into an existing system; full-featured; and performance as advertised.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

ShockwavePyro — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:49:47 GMT

All sounds really positive so far then, thanks for all your replies. When you say I wish they had an 'outdoor' Q... do you mean externally powered? or sound capable? or both? Personally I think the 2 different models have got most bases covered now...

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Hula_Rock — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:55:52 GMT

The Q is for Indoor Only.

if they had a Q outdoor (External powered, Pixel change detection, 2-way audio, CVR function) it would be GOLDEN.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

ShockwavePyro — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:01:00 GMT

Agreed, but you'd need Gold to pay for it I reckon

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

justintong — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:30:09 GMT

First time poster. I have 4 of the wireless Arlos and just added the Arlo q a few days ago. Overall, I like the Arlo q and this will be my indoor security camera. The increased resolution is nice as is the sound detection and 2 way audio. I never realized how much noise my dogs make in the house when we are gone. I probably won't be using the audio very much other than messing with the dogs when we are away.

My only gripe so far is that I have to arm and disarm the Arlo q separately from the other wireless cameras in the app. I don't really understand why because under the section where you select the desired mode for the wireless cameras, there is an armed and disarmed mode that includes motion and sound.

Isn't there some way that we can group the cameras (original arlos and arlo q) together into one mode so that we don't have to go to multiple screens?

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

JamesC — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:55:31 GMT

justintong,

Thank you for the great feedback! At this time the modes for Arlo Q are separate from the Arlo Wire-free devices. If you have both Arlo Q's and Arlo Wire-free cameras on the same account they must be armed/disarmed separately.

JamesC

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

ShockwavePyro — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:15:02 GMT

"At this time"? so you have plans to bring them together?

JamesC wrote:
justintong,

Thank you for the great feedback! At this time the modes for Arlo Q are separate from the Arlo Wire-free devices. If you have both Arlo Q's and Arlo Wire-free cameras on the same account they must be armed/disarmed separately.

JamesC

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Nweaver — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:18:24 GMT

I just set up the two Q units I got to add to my 3 "regular" Arlo units. Pretty happy so far.

The motion detection is much better, and the recorded clips seem to include 9-10 seconds of footage BEFORE the trigger happened. Picture quality seems to be on par with Nest.

I keep some expensive work equpiment and my garage and have had a complex about somebody breaking in that garage for years. I'm now very confident that the Q would trigger on the sound of somebody trying to gain access even before they got the door open, AND get a good frame of a face, unlike the original Arlos.

All Netgear would have to do is make an outdoor housing for this and they'd have all the bases covered!

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

JamesC — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:24:17 GMT

ShockwavePyro,

I don't know that there are plans currently but it is a great idea. I would recommend making a post in the Arlo Idea Exchange concerning this topic. It looks like there is already a similar thread started: https://community.netgear.com/t5/Arlo-Idea-Exchange/Integrate-Q-to-be-used-in-a-mode-with-wireless-cameras/idi-p/1038510

JamesC

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Jimfr — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:23:13 GMT

I'm very happy with my new Q so far. Setup was a breeze and the picture quality is very good. I love all the setup options such as motion detection zones and scheduling (I also have a Logitech Circle which I will be sending back, as it has none of these options).

Two items on my wishlist so far: 1). A window mount (I use the camera to monitor my front door). 2). A way to specify a minimum interval between motion alerts; I don't want two events 2 minutes apart as it's probably the same event. The old Logitech Alert system had this feature.

That's all for now; highly recommended!

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

ShockwavePyro — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:12:42 GMT

Jimfr wrote:
I'm very happy with my new Q so far. Setup was a breeze and the picture quality is very good. I love all the setup options such as motion detection zones and scheduling (I also have a Logitech Circle which I will be sending back, as it has none of these options).

Two items on my wishlist so far: 1). A window mount (I use the camera to monitor my front door). 2). A way to specify a minimum interval between motion alerts; I don't want two events 2 minutes apart as it's probably the same event. The old Logitech Alert system had this feature.

That's all for now; highly recommended!

Don't you get a reflection off the window from the nightvision LED's when it's dark?

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Jimfr — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:16:49 GMT

Yes, I had to turn off night vision (which, in my case is OK, since most visitors and packages arrive during daylight hours).

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

jguerdat — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:29:45 GMT

My setup also includes a wireless camera so the IR illuminators from that work to light the scene. You may be surprised at the detail available with Q if there's some sort of lighting available even of not optimal.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Jimfr — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:24:47 GMT

jguerdat,

Yes, I agree, the low-light performance of the Q is excellent. If I have a light on inside in the room with the outside-facing camera, the glow off those lights lets the Q pick up amazing detail outside.

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

CloudHopper — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 18:57:41 GMT

Is it possible to digitally zoom in on the recordings and get a decent picture, or is the compression too high?

Re: So... How is ARLO-Q then?

Nweaver — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 19:48:38 GMT

Well, this was enlightening. I made a still frame from the Arlo interface to post and show you, but learned the still frames it saves out are 720P only, even though the camera is set to 1080p in camera settings.

I had to record a few seconds manually, then download the clip and then extract a still to post this:

I'm a professional cinematographer, one of the things I'm noticing in the still is just how crappy the lens on the camera is. I susect the sensor itself isn't so bad because you can see some good detail towards the center of frame and with objects maybe 2-3ft from lens. Edges of frame and objects 15ft out are softer than they should be. Kinda of a bummer. I suspect if I checked my other Q it would be a little different. Manu tolerances while seating the lens to the sensor.

It seems like it would do the job if/when something needs identifying, but it's not as good as it could be.

[edit: After posting, noticing the bulletin board interface is scaling the grab. Here's a image download link: http://i.imgur.com/yP71neD.jpg ]