So... How is ARLO-Q then?

[ShockwavePyro]

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?

[Hula_Rock]

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

[jguerdat]

^ +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.

[TomMac]

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.

[mep123]

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.

[ShockwavePyro]

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...

[Hula_Rock]

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.

[ShockwavePyro]

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

[justintong]

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?

[JamesC]

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

[ShockwavePyro]

"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

---

[Nweaver]

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!

[JamesC]

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-c...

JamesC

[Jimfr]

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!

[ShockwavePyro]

---

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?

[Jimfr]

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

[jguerdat]

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.

[Jimfr]

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.

[CloudHopper]

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

[Nweaver]

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 ]

[jguerdat]

---

CloudHopper wrote:

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

---

For my taste, compression is still too high but you can zoom in some with reasonable results.  Just don't expect a 2MP image with significant compression to be crystal clear, especially since it's basically a fisheye lens to capture the whole scene rather than a telephoto to capture the pimples on a bug's butt.

[jguerdat]

---

Nweaver wrote:

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.

---

The lens is obviously a fisheye - 130 degrees which equates to about a 10mm lens on a 35mm or full-frame digital SLR.  It's not highly corrected - maybe a single element?  That could explain the softness since the lens would be likely positioned in an average location so nothing is horrible but nothing is truly sharp.  I had a "prize" 35mm camera 35 years ago that was so cheap the film plane was curved so the lens could be as cheap as possible. It's possible the lens is a better quality than that but youd need to be able to disassemble and/or test it to be sure.

[Sparrowhawk]

That sample image quality would be good enough for my needs. I'm still hoping for a compression control for both the Arlo and Arlo Q one day though. I see there is a request for that in the Arlo ideas exchange.

[CloudHopper]

Thanks Nweaver for that sample. That is very helpful. How far is that open door away from the camera? About 18 feet?