Activity zones in Arlo Pro 2

[Paul_FCCL]

Are the activity zones back in AP2? I remember seeing something about the feature disabled a while back.

Thanks.

[steve_t]

You can configure up to 3 zones when the Pro 2 is under permanent AC power

[Paul_FCCL]

I understand that part, however I wanted to know whether it’s currently available as Netgear disabled the feature a while back (for some strange reason.....like the AP2 hardware wasn’t suitable to handle activity zones?). So just wondering now if it’s back and working. Are you using it with your AP2 and how is it working for you?

Thanks.

[steve_t]

I haven't been using the feature.
I can set up the 3 activity zones, no problem there. But when I edit the rule for the camera to detect motion and record, there's no option to choose which of the 3 zones I want active... maybe it's always all of them??

[jguerdat]

It should be active these days but I can't test it since my powered camera is indoors looking through glass which defeats the PIR motion detection (apparently the P2 uses PIR detection and pixle-based detection to determine the zones). We've been told that when you're AC powered and have defined zones, the zones (all of them) are automatically used in your rules. You don't get to choose whether to use them as well as which zones to use.  It doesn't work at all like the Q cameras in that regard.

[Paul_FCCL]

Wouldn’t the pixel-based motion detection be required (I’m assuming it’s working) in order to work through a window glass? If your camera is working ok and detecting motion through window, then it must use pixel-based detection. Activity zones, in that case, are optional.

[steve_t]

---

wrote:

Wouldn’t the pixel-based motion detection be required (I’m assuming it’s working) in order to work through a window glass? If your camera is working ok and detecting motion through window, then it must use pixel-based detection. Activity zones, in that case, are optional.

---

Pretty sure his powered cam looking through glass is triggered by another camera

[jguerdat]

Exactly - I have a nested rule where an outdoor camera triggers the indoor one. I have a rule for the indoor camera by itself but it never triggers.

[Paul_FCCL]

---

@jguerdatwrote:

Exactly - I have a nested rule where an outdoor camera triggers the indoor one. I have a rule for the indoor camera by itself but it never triggers.

---

Jeff, do you have zones set up in your indoor AP2? I’m asking because it should trigger ok if the pixel-based detection was working as it should.

[steve_t]

---

wrote:

---

@jguerdatwrote:

Exactly - I have a nested rule where an outdoor camera triggers the indoor one. I have a rule for the indoor camera by itself but it never triggers.

---

Jeff, do you have zones set up in your indoor AP2? I’m asking because it should trigger ok if the pixel-based detection was working as it should.

---

It's a "hybrid" detection system which uses PIR as the primary trigger and then looks at pixels, hence it doesn't work through glass 😞

[Paul_FCCL]

---

wrote:

---

It's a "hybrid" detection system which uses PIR as the primary trigger and then looks at pixels, hence it doesn't work through glass 😞

---

Wouldn’t the preset activity zone(s) force the pixel-based trigger over the PIR, are zones just ignored in favour of PIR? Is there any AP2 technical reference text detailing these things?

[jguerdat]

Yes, I have zones set but that hasn't affected motion detection. There's no reference I know of that details this but empirically it doesn't work. We;ve been told that it's a hybrid system that needs to use the PIR for motion detection and that's exactly what I've found. It's impractical for me to run power to my outdoor P2 so I can't say how that would work.

[Paul_FCCL]

---

@jguerdatwrote:

Yes, I have zones set but that hasn't affected motion detection. There's no reference I know of that details this but empirically it doesn't work. We;ve been told that it's a hybrid system that needs to use the PIR for motion detection and that's exactly what I've found. It's impractical for me to run power to my outdoor P2 so I can't say how that would work.

---

That tells me the activity zone feature (nor the pixel-based detection) is working, it’s most likely still disabled. If I remember well......back a while ago, Netgear disabled the pixel-based detection, I don’t believe they ever put it back. I remember reading some posts about it, someone said he was told by Netgear support AP2 hardware wasn’t capable of operating with pixel-based detection.

I suppose this may/should be confirmed by support?

[jguerdat]

It's an interesting/frustrating situation. I do have a couple of recordings from the indoor camera that don't also have a corresponding recording from the triggering outdoor camera. Here's the most recent:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gjtfnsfaatc599p/1518266961275.mp4?dl=0

The outdoor camera is mounted at an angle and would have difficulty seeing that small motion.  I have no idea what's going on.

[st_shaw]

As @jguerdat says, the activity zone requires both a PIR detection AND some activity inside the zone.  I have confirmed this myself with my Pro 2 cameras.

It is quite easy to do a test to confirm this. Setup a camera indoors with an activity zone.  Confirm it triggers inside.  Point it outside through a window. Then try to trigger by walking through the zone outside.

Because IR doesn't pass through windows, this means you cannot have a camera inside detect activity outside using a zone.

[steve_t]

I wonder if they run off a similar detection algorithm to Arlo Smart. The PIR detects the motion, the camera sends some data to the Arlo servers, which come back and say the pixels changing are inside or outside of the motion zones so either record or don't record

[Paul_FCCL]

Or you could check how far motion detection can be triggered, either inside or outside. With the PIR system you’re only going to get a 20’ - 25’ max coverage (excluding triggers from hot objects like cars or trucks driving by). With a pixel-based system and activity zones, motion detection can trigger much farther, easily reaching the 40’ - 50’distance.

I may be wrong, but I believe the PIR automatically takes over when cam runs on battery, while pixel-based with activity zones (when working properly) is activated when cam is running on a/c power. That must be what they mean with “combo PIR-activity zones”, but only one or the other can be active.

[steve_t]

Jguerdat's Pro 2 that looks through glass is AC powered and does not detect through the glass

[Paul_FCCL]

---

wrote:

Jguerdat's Pro 2 that looks through glass is AC powered and does not detect through the glass

---

Yes .........that might be due to “disabled activity zones feature in AP2?” original question. That’s why I also said “when working properly”.

PIR and pixel-based are two completely different motion detection methods, I’ve never heard of them wotking together, it’s either one or the other active. Again, I may be wrong here, you’re welcome to correct me with something I may have missed.

[st_shaw]

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

Jguerdat's Pro 2 that looks through glass is AC powered and does not detect through the glass

---

Yes .........that might be due to “disabled activity zones feature in AP2?” original question. That’s why I also said “when working properly”.

PIR and pixel-based are two completely different motion detection methods, I’ve never heard of them wotking together, it’s either one or the other active. Again, I may be wrong here, you’re welcome to correct me with something I may have missed.

---

At least two of us have already explained in this thread how the Pro 2 currently works.

No. It is not due to activity zones not working.

No. There is no reason why you must have either one or the other detection methods active, but not both.

Yes. PIR and pixel-based can be programmed to work together. It's called a logical AND operation.

Just because you havene't seen it doesn't mean that's not how it works.

Why do you keep questioning everything?  Read my post for a description of how to test this yourself. It would only take a few minutes.

[Paul_FCCL]

---

wrote:

.....bla bla bla bla......Just because you havene't seen it doesn't mean that's not how it works.

Why do you keep questioning everything?  Read my post for a description of how to test this yourself. It would only take a few minutes......bla bla bla.

And you are??? Did some one die yesterday and they made you God?

1. You have not explained anything, actually your earlier claim to know how motion detection works was countered by someone with the “right” answer;

2. I have asked and will keep on asking questions until correct answers are provided, so that obviously excludes yours, not needed not wanted not correct;

3. Do the letters st...in front of your nick stand for sergeant? Who the @$&%&@#$ do you think you are?

4. Get a life.......

If you can’t say anything appropriate then keep it shut, I never have addressed you in any way and trust me I’d never do it.

---

[st_shaw]

It looks like my post offended you.  🙂  I can understand that.  I probably should have written my post differently.  However, I was annoyed that you asked how the activity zones worked, the answer was provided to you based on experimental results, then you questioned the results because they seemed unfamiliar to you, and not because you had some information to the contrary.

I will try to explain more fully how the Pro 2 works in case anyone is interested.

The cameras have three modes of detection: 1) sound, 2) passive infrared (PIR), and 3) pixel activity within defined zones. PIR has a wide field of view, covering the entire camera's viewing area.

The cameras have the following limitations: 1) passive infrared does not work through glass, because common glass blocks IR wavelengths of light, and 2) the camera must be plugged into AC power to activate pixel zones.

When using activity zones, the Pro 2 cameras require BOTH a passive infrared detection AND some pixel activity within the defined activity zones before they will raise an alert. This is actually a smart choice by NETGEAR, because pixel-based motion detection is horribly prone to false alarms.  By combining PIR and pixel detection, the false alarm rate should go way down.  This type of behavior (raising an alert based on the logical combination of multiple events) is available in other brands of cameras, e.g. Axis, and would be easily programmed in firmware.

Anyone can easily demonstrate to themselves that this is how the Pro 2 works. Just plug in a Pro 2, setup an activity zone, and verify that you can trigger the camera with motion inside the zone.  Now point the camera through a window, go on the outside of the window, and you will be unable to trigger the camera. This simple experiment proves that both PIR and pixel activity are required for an activity zone alert.

If you're looking for an official explanation from NETGEAR, it's unlikely you'll get it. NETGEAR rarely explains details of how their products work, and they sometimes change functionality between firmware releases.

[jguerdat]

I'd disagree on the pixel-based detection being horrible for false triggers, especially with zones. I find it superior to PIR detection, at least for my purposes.

[st_shaw]

---

@jguerdat wrote:

I'd disagree on the pixel-based detection being horrible for false triggers, especially with zones. I find it superior to PIR detection, at least for my purposes.

---

I'm not sure what I wrote was clear.  PIR detection alone is generally pretty good.  Detections based ONLY on pixel changes are generally false alarm prone, because they respond to ANY changes in the scene.  That would include bugs, spider webs, rain, shadows, etc.  The Pro 2 combines PIR and pixel-based motion detection, which should be superior to either alone.

On what system do you find pixel-based detection superior? If you are referring to the Pro 2, then you are actually agreeing with me.

[Paul_FCCL]

st_shaw wrote:

However, I was annoyed that you asked how the activity zones worked, the answer was provided to you based on experimental results, then you questioned the results because they seemed unfamiliar to you, and not because you had some information to the contrary.

Hope you realize that’s the main purpose of these community forums: “ask questions, discuss product and answers provided”. When I don’t know enough about something, while expressing my opinion, it is my habit to say “I may be wrong about this....”. I like reading as much as possible about these things, always trying to learn more about things that interest me.

Read a lot of stuff about motion detection, including all that’s been said around here. Nowhere else I could see any info about the use of combo IR/pixel motion detection system, not even from any of major security camera makers. They all use either one or the other. Even the Netgear (administrator?) helped clarify this issue, you read his educated explanation of the two methods, without even a mention of a combo use of IR/pixel systems. So that’s new to me, frankly I believe there’s nothing wrong for trying to get more details about it by asking more questions. That’s why I come here.

For people providing help and assistance with best possible answers can be frustrating at times. I know that, I’m not a superuser (like you) but I’ve been doing my little parts in helping out around here whenever I can. Would be nice to “know it all” but none of us would be here if that was the case. Coming across to someone asking questions like you did with me certainly doesn’t help anyone.

I apologize too, I don’t often react like that and should’ve done what I usually do, ignore and move on.