FOV Motion Sensing Issues. Detects only lower 1/2 to 1/3 of its FOV?

[Allen012]

Hello!  I've got an Ultra 2 and just had some questions regarding the field of view (FOV).  My understanding is that this camera can only detect motion in the lower 1/2 to 1/3 of it's FOV.  Any reason the software was written this way?  Why isn't the entire FOV used for motion?  It creates a large limitation in what the camera is capable of detecting.  When creating "zones" I pulled the little white dots to create a purple colored zone on the entire FOV, however, is this useless considering the camera only senses motion in the bottom 1/3 of that zone?  Hope this makes sense.  Are there plans to modify the software or sensor in an upcoming camera to deal with this issue?  Much appreciated.  

[StephenB]

---

@Allen012 wrote:

 My understanding is that this camera can only detect motion in the lower 1/2 to 1/3 of it's FOV.  

It's more accurate to say that it's more sensitive to motion in the bottom of the FOV.  It is also more sensitive to motion across the field of view.  So if you have it aimed directly down a sidewalk or a driveway, it can easily miss someone walking towards the camera.

Note you can invert the camera if you need motion detection to be most sensitive at the top of the field of view.

---

@Allen012 wrote:

Any reason the software was written this way?  

---

Nothing to do with the software.  The camera has PIR sensors that detect the motion.  It's about where those sensors are placed.

[Allen012]

StephenB, 

Thanks for the explanations, I appreciate it.  Interesting that they couldn't work around the PIR sensor issue and place either a larger sensor or find a hardware fix of some sort.  At some point it becomes cost prohibitive and these are already rather spendy cameras so it makes sense as to why it couldn't be properly fixed if cost was indeed the issue.

 I understand there's limitations when using PIR motion vs other kinds, but the fact that I need to invert my camera to get it to sense motion properly is a bit ridiculous, however, it's a good and clever option to have on Arlo's part.  In my case, If I place the camera on the side of the house vs the center (facing driveway) then its further from the Hub (wifi limitation) and it's also further from people walking up the driveway which decreases the clarity of the video defeating the whole purpose of having the camera so I'm sorta stuck as far as camera placement goes as it's already in an optimal location.  

Have you (or anyone?) paired these cameras with Arlo spotlight motion sensors?  I'm trying to leave the cameras where they are as the wifi strength (not an option to move router) is best at their current location.  Thanks for feedback!

[StephenB]

I don't think larger sensors would be the solution, it's more about where they are placed on the camera. More sensors could be added on the top I guess.  In any event, the current sensor arrangement is intentional.

---

@Allen012 wrote:

the fact that I need to invert my camera to get it to sense motion properly is a bit ridiculous

---

There is a setting to invert the image, so it won't appear upside down.  I had one of mine upside for a while - but the reason was different from yours.  I used it to reduce detection at the bottom of the field of view (and didn't care about the top).  The camera was on a fairly narrow porch, and there was lot of false recordings from bushes at the bottom of the field of view.  Reducing motion sensitivity didn't work well - I missed too much I was interested in.  Flipping the camera did solve it (people were high enough in the field of view to set it off).

---

@Allen012 wrote:

Have you (or anyone?) paired these cameras with Arlo spotlight motion sensors? 

---

I have one of the Arlo Lights, but I haven't paired it with a camera for quite a while.  The Pro 3 Floodlight works very well for me, so that's what I'm using now.  The older Arlo Light is still in my garage, but just used as a motion-detecting light source.  Hopefully someone else here who is using it for triggering will chime in.

[jguerdat]

---

@StephenB wrote:

I don't think larger sensors would be the solution, it's more about where they are placed on the camera. More sensors could be added on the top I guess.  In any event, the current sensor arrangement is intentional.

---

Another issue is the extremely wide angle view - the top part of the view is typically farther away from the camera so more/larger sensors wouldn't matter.

[Allen012]

All good points. Definitely makes sense that the top portion of the FOC would be for the away and the sensor would either place less priority on that area or it would simply be more difficult for the sensor to sense motion due to distance. I think the motion sensing lights paired with the camera will be the best option for me as moving the cameras create multiple
Other issues.