Animal recording

[Pedersab]

Arlo is able to detect animals, but how come it is not possible to make the settings, so the camera does not record the animals. I have animals all the time and it significantly reduces my battery life time.

Dear Arlo Tech crew can you please fix this as I otherwise would have to take your great products dowm as the cameras continue to run of of battery and there is 500 km to my sommehouse, where they are positioned

[dcfox1]

---

@Pedersab wrote:

Arlo is able to detect animals, but how come it is not possible to make the settings, so the camera does not record the animals. I have animals all the time and it significantly reduces my battery life time.

---

The camera has to record everything as it is not classified an Animal until it goes to the server and it is processed there. The camera itself does not do it so there would be no other way for them to do  it. Arlo Smart notifications just eliminates notifications not recordings. You could use  filters in your library to just show certain types. 

[Ltlrags]

You could also try reducing the sensitivity of the cameras, but in my experience it doesn't help. I have a 9lb dog and even at 20% sensitivity he is recorded about 75% of the time.

[Rocketdog13]

The fact is that this isn't a problem that needs fixed per say, it's more of a mis-selling of the features. People bought into this thinking that smart meant the camera could tell the difference, the camera can't, it's just a high def camera with some added toys. The software tells the difference and it isn't built into the camera it's back on an Arlo computer server somewhere analysing your footage before notifying you of what it is.

If I were you I would buy a hard wired traditional system with a localised drive with the ability to back up to your own cloud or a could service, for where you have it Arlo cameras are not for you.

With Arlo cameras everything is recorded for analytics so maybe one day the actual cameras will have the tech built in but for now it's just a useless feature being "sold" to people as a means to generate an income stream for Arlo.

I would cancel your plan and just stick with basic features as you're paying for a service that makes zero difference to the way the camera works, it does the same thing whether you have the subscription plan or not.

[Ltlrags]

That's great advice, especially considering that many notifications (i.e., people at my front door) arrive after the person is gone.

[Rocketdog13]

Ideally what we want is for there to be a separate system of compatible PIR sensors (not made by Arlo ideally) that trigger the cameras, smart sensors that can be programmed for animals, vehicles & people, however this ability to differentiate must be built in to the PIR and not determined by offsite software

If the PIR is triggered then the camera starts recording and there is zero wait time for the signal to be sent via the Arlo servers to determine whether to record or not because that decision has already been made by another device, the camera only need record because it's been told to.

My smart phone can recognise people faces and decide to unlock or not, so this technology exists now, we need integration with compatible devices because if my Echo show can show me my cameras then integration at that level is also possible right now.

The cameras are great quality and obviously very handy when a wired system is not possible or desired but the app & browser software sucks bad as do the smart features which are borderline useless, the only reason I have a four camera Pro 3 set is because I got it for 65% discount and only paid £320, otherwise after retiring my HD cameras I would have stumped for a wired system if I had £900 to spend on cctv.

Unfortunately Arlo cameras are the lesser evil amongst systems, I have tried many and only Eufy come close but being Chinese controlled the caveats are obvious.

[StephenB]

---

@Rocketdog13 wrote:

Ideally what we want is for there to be a separate system of compatible PIR sensors (not made by Arlo ideally) that trigger the cameras, smart sensors that can be programmed for animals, vehicles & people, however this ability to differentiate must be built in to the PIR and not determined by offsite software

It is not possible to do this with PIR sensors, since they don't capture an image that can be analyzed.  All they do is detect a change in the IR landing on the sensor.   More information on that is here: https://learn.adafruit.com/pir-passive-infrared-proximity-motion-sensor/how-pirs-work

Though I think your main point is that you want smart sensors that discriminate between people, animals, and vehicles at the edge, without needing a cloud. That is possible with powered sensors (not PIR), but the battery drain would be too high with today's AI tech. 

[Rocketdog13]

Right ok but you get my point yeah?

PIR's are not specifically limited to a temp range for bodies, they can detect change in temp in ANY moving object so a suitable fine tuned PIR could detect a moving body big enough to trigger a camera, this would absolutely rule out pet triggers but could include cars and vans due to heat from engines/exhausts.

I know this because my house alarm has PIR's that are not triggered by either my two cats or my dog but are triggered by my kids.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7366960

The fact of the matter is that the Arlo software is complete rubbish, it's unfit for purpose as is the system in general, the cameras are very very good but Arlo insist on hobbling everything with BS subscriptions for things that are useless and by the time the servers have decided that they should record the even has usually passed and the footage is useless, we need immediate recording and then a software package can erase footage based on end user set parameters, and we can change those parameters as we see fit like if we go on vacation for instance.

These issues are not unsolvable, but Arlo would rather sell us useless plans instead of innovate.

***cue locking of thread because superuser doesn't like it***

[StephenB]

---

@Rocketdog13 wrote:

PIR's are not specifically limited to a temp range for bodies, they can detect change in temp in ANY moving object so a suitable fine tuned PIR could detect a moving body big enough to trigger a camera, this would absolutely rule out pet triggers but could include cars and vans due to heat from engines/exhausts.

---

Yes, you can tune the PIR to the amount of IR change (which Arlo does with a lower bound, but not an upper one).

Not sure myself if an upper bound would work out well, since the amount of change depends on the size, distance, and amount of heat.  So someone coming into the sensor range close-up could generate the same change as a van at a distance.  But it would be interesting to see.

---

@Rocketdog13 wrote:

***cue locking of thread because superuser doesn't like it***

---

Superusers don't lock or remove posts, mods do that.

Personally I report spam and personal attacks (using the same forum tools available to everyone) - nothing in your posts here looks out of bounds to me.