Camera zoom

[Spy40]

When in video settings if camera zoom is slightly minimised to focus on a certain area, does the pir still activate for the whole view range not just the zoomed area? as I'm getting activations when zoomed but nothing is showing. However the part of the camera view not shown is potential getting movement.

[steve_t]

Correct. The Zoom only affects the video. The PIR sensor is still the same. You may want to turn down the motion sensitivity. One bonus of zooming in is the apparently delay between motion and recording appears less 😉

[Spy40]

Ok that explains this.

The motion detection was set to 93% last night and missed my wife walking across drive and open the door?? Should I still reduce motion?

[Spy40]

Ok that explains this.

The motion detection was set to 93% last night and missed my wife walking across drive and open the door?? Should I still reduce motion?

[jguerdat]

Make sure motion is across the FOV, not directly at the camera. My cameras pick up squirrels and rabbits at as much as 25 feet on occasion.

Edit: Oh, yeah, post a screenshot of the camera view for suggestions.

[Spy40]

[Spy40]

The camera is not directly facing the motion but I know it's not ideal. It's the best I can get t

---

Spy40 wrote:

---

aking into consideration access for battery changes and height so no one can touch it. Bear in mind two cars are normally on the drive therefore people will walk down middle of drive to house, slightly across fov.

[jguerdat]

That's basically your problem - directly at the camera is difficult for the PIR detectors to see the motion. A weird "solution" could be to rotate the camera 90 degrees so motion would then be across the FOV but there's no 90 degree rotation adjustment built into the software. You'd just have to get used to tipping your head to view.

That wall on the left could be useful if yours or you get permission to mount the camera. Otherwise, the left side of the overhang as seen in this view might be a better place if far enough to the left. You could use a screw-on mount for more security.

[steve_t]

Is that a shared driveway? No doubt cars going past would set it off. Vehicles have such a large thermal mass that even when not zoomed, they can trigger motion sensing when not in the frame. 
I would suggest a lower positioning. Most of my cameras are in arm's reach but if you're concerned about them getting stolen, check out the security measures others have taken in other threads. You might not prevent it 100% but even a little deterrent is enough to slow them down enough to capture their face on camera (unless it's a premeditated theft and they cover their face).
Have had the Arlo for a long time now and none have been stolen. In fact, nobody even notices they're there

[Spy40]

The wall u suggest if it's the wall I'm thinking of is actually a fence which isn't that high maybe under 2m. The wall to the bottom left is my doorway again not too high. I did think about locating it there but thought the lack of height would make it easily stolen and wasn't sure if it would cover cars and entrance.

I have adjusted it slightly away from the main road but I think I'll try rotating 90degs next.

It's not a shared drive but the shape of house and accessing the battery whilst cover the entrance and cars is difficult.

[steve_t]

My driveway is kind of similar but larger. I have two cameras, one on the house up high looking down the driveway, kinda like yours and one on the fence to the left in a black silicone skin (on a black fence). Both cameras have motion trigger to record but also get the other camera to record as well. I guess it's not ideal to need two cameras to cover the same area but I do find it works really well. The one looking down the driveway has the road at the end of it so I have the motion sensitivity in the 70's while the one looking across the driveway has a motion sensitivity of about 95

[Spy40]

I was thinking the same tbh having another camera lower in the other corner near the fence would work. My other option is to relocate this camera to the fence position to the left looking across the garage cars and front door but I'm sure I'll get movement from down the street then . It's tricky to say the least!!

[bryan536]

You seem to have the same problem I have. I recently purchased a single camera system but have now purchased a second camera to try and overcome a similar problem to yours.

 When first putting up my camera I found it did not always trigger recording or if it did I only got a partial recording. I eventually decided that while the camera has a110 degree fov the PIR sensor only has approx. fov of 30 degrees. ( without a diagram from Arlo I am only guessing). The PIR does seem to be able to trigger from quite a distance and of course the further from the sensor the wider the fov. With this in mind It is my  intention to position my original camera lower down (not less than 8 feet )  at the left side of my house and point it across the front of my house. I also intend to sacrifice some of the picture fov so that I can move the PIR fov closer the the front door ( trial and error ).  My second camera will be situated at the right side of the house similarly positioned looking back across the front of my house.

  I hope then to set some Rules so that each camera can trigger the other camera to record irrespective of which one is triggered.

  I realise that people can creep under the PIR fov of each individual camera if staying close to the boundary but  as I said earlier the PIR fov gets wider the further away from the camera it gets and it does seem to be sensitive to movement at quite a good distance. So I am hoping I have each boundary covered.

  Hopefully I will have full coverage across the front of my house.

  Hope I haven't rambled on too much and  have given you some ideas. Looking at your photo I would be putting a second camera up on the front part of the house we cannot see looking across the drive and trigger both for recording irrespective of which triggers. 

[steve_t]

You wrote this in your other thread but my experience has been that the PIR has a FOV much wider than 30 degrees. Not sure where you got your information from but I don't think it's even close to correct, sorry

[Spy40]

Regardless of the angle. The PIR is temprimental as it picks up things that aren't even close however misses someone walking directly across the drive. Very much trial and error then if that fails I need another camera. I agree with the solution however this can't be the right solution certainly from the manufacturer point of view it is for obvious reasons!!! Half hashed attempted at a product that doesn't work correctly is my opinion at the minute!!

[Spy40]

Can leaves and plants blowing set this thing off as well??

[TomMac]

---

Spy40 wrote:
Can leaves and plants blowing set this thing off as well??

---

Yes , esp if they are reflecting IR

[Spy40]

Seems so temperamental to me. The camera goes off for a car driving past that is in shot then doesnt pick up my car until I'm out of it and practically in the house. Can rely on this for anything tbh.

[jguerdat]

It all depends on the camera positioning. Motion on virtually any device that uses a PIR motion detector, such as the wireless cameras, want motion across the FOV instead of directly at the sensor. Nature of the beast. Post a screenshot for suggestions.

Cars can not only be a great source of IR but also reflect the sun's IR well. You likely have more shots of cars driving by during the day than at night because of this. Plus, they're likely moving across the FOV.

[Spy40]

Tha is looks like that's my issue. I did post this on another thread and that was the same outcome. However I was talking about people walking up drive, I thought cars would be picked up coming onto drive better. The cars going up the road are picked up more and are not even in shot until it exits the scene so I don't know how it's pickng these up, unless the PIR picks up beyond the view a little?

[bryan536]

High Steve t.. I bow to your superor knowledge.

I have just received my new camera and set it up on the kitchen table and then checked at what point it triggered. This gave a Field of View of 80 to 90 degrees consistently. 

You are right and I am wrong. I got the 30 degrees from watching the recorded pictures and checking where they triggered, going in from both directions and using markers wihin the pictures but obviously this was much too rough a way of doing things and gave a poor estimate.

With this FOV I don't see how it misses anyone entering the trigger area in a cross path. I can only assume it depends on the height of the camera similar to a PIR security light.

My apologies to anyone who took my first estimate at face value. 

[steve_t]

The other problem that may have misled you is the delay between motion being detected and the start of recording. With the Arlo wirefree, it's often several seconds worth of delay. With the Arlo Pro, it's much less.

---

bryan536 wrote:

High Steve t.. I bow to your superor knowledge.

I have just received my new camera and set it up on the kitchen table and then checked at what point it triggered. This gave a Field of View of 80 to 90 degrees consistently. 

You are right and I am wrong. I got the 30 degrees from watching the recorded pictures and checking where they triggered, going in from both directions and using markers wihin the pictures but obviously this was much too rough a way of doing things and gave a poor estimate.

With this FOV I don't see how it misses anyone entering the trigger area in a cross path. I can only assume it depends on the height of the camera similar to a PIR security light.

My apologies to anyone who took my first estimate at face value. 

---

[jguerdat]

The PIR can see perhaps a bit beyond the camera lens. Rotating down helps.

[bryan536]

Hi jguerdat.

While I am not saying my measurements are the definitive answer I made them on a flat table and the horizontal trigger points were consistently within a range of 41 to 43 degrees either side of the camera centre line.  Therefore allowing for trigger delay and slight inconsistencies I came up with the figures of 80 to 90 degrees.

Yes the trigger may see as wide as the camera lens but it is my contention that this will be reflections rather than the actual PIR. Could be wrong, who knows.

You say tilting the camera down could solve triggering problems. Couldn't agree more. I had been thinking about this and so I have done another test on my kitchen table again but this time I laid the camera on its side. Again with the PIR facing down a cenre line. When triggering by moving in from the top of the camera and from below the camera i.e. from the  left then the right  the trigger happened at a consistent 10 degrees and 17 degrees respectively.

This means with the camera when mounted the right way up the PIR fov is (by my measurements) 80 to 90 degrees HORIZONTALLY and 27 degrees VERTICALLY with 10 degrees above the PIR centre line and 17 degrees  below.

This is  a band which should see anyone CROSSING the fov because in most cases I would think people would mount their cameras tilted down.

One problem is this.If you mount your camera upside down and then invert the image the  camera needs to point further down to get a similar trigger area close to the camera as when it is mounted the right way up.

I seem to be becoming a PIR  bore but I think this info should be provided  by Netgear just as PIR activated security lights always provide this info. It is essential to getting a good response from the cameras.

Still like this system though and will be buying more cameras.

[jguerdat]

Nice job!  Not something I'm going to duplicate myself so thanks for sharing.

An issue that can affect your test is the amount of IR being used to trigger.  Reflections are potentially a big issue which is why distant cars can cause an event, especially on a sunny day.  Wind and leaves are another frequent issue, again, especially on a sunny day.  The sun is a huge IR generator and reflections can be the cause of many false positives.  What source were you using?  Did you try multiple sources such as a hot pan of water or a lighter?