Do I need a subscription to record manually?

[24Woodland]

Am I reading this right? After spending on 2 Arlo cameras, 1 doorbell, 1 extra db battery, and 2 solar panels, I find that I can’t do the most basic function of any camera which is to record manually unless I pay extra for a plan? Which means, if I want to record manually, I would need a plan but - correct me if I’m wrong - unless I pay for a multi-cam plan, I’ll be able to record only on one camera? Please confirm if I got this right because at this point I just realised that I have spent a fortune on a system that I can’t use without paying an extra tenner a month!?!?!

[24Woodland]

Of course, I forgot… I also have a hub with manual recordings enabled and a 512Gb USB stick. Why can’t I record manually to the hub without a subscription?

I see the 4K HDR live option preventing manual recording, but I have no such option anymore since my subscription ended. Oh how I regret buying into Arlo!!!!!

[DannyBearAgain · Accepted solution]

Arlo has never allowed such a basic function (I.e. record manually) since 2017 when the 7days free cloud storage bundle ended after the pro2 models.

Its now akin to buying a brand new car but having to pay rent to use the car keys, but at least it looks nice sitting in the driveway.

[24Woodland]

Wow… Had I known. It should be labelled clearly that Arlo limits such a basic function. Imagine buying a top SLR and realising that unless you have a subscription with Canon, you can’t take pictures! I suppose screen capture will have to do… Madness. Lesson learned.

[DannyBearAgain]

Unfortunately like manual recording, snapshots are also excluded.

All your allowed to do is watch live as your new car is towed away.

[StephenB]

---

@DannyBearAgain wrote:

Unfortunately like manual recording, snapshots are also excluded.

---

@24Woodland:  If you have a VMB4540 or VMB5000 smarthub, you can access locally stored recordings from the app.  Many people use that feature as an alternative to getting a subscription. But there are a lot of limitations:

1. Recordings only available from the app, not the browser
2. Recordings only available to the primary account, not friend accounts
3. No ability to make manual recordings or snapshots
4. No thumbnails, videos need to be downloaded to the phone to view.
5. Remote access requires router settings changes that some find difficult (and which don't work with some internet service providers).

[24Woodland]

I mean using the iPad’s or iPhone’s screen capture (video and still) whilst viewing full screen in the Arlo app, which is what I had to do. Otherwise, the alert clips record fine onto the hub using a USB stick. It’s an extra step, but it works fine enough for purpose.

[StephenB]

---

@24Woodland wrote:

I mean using the iPad’s or iPhone’s screen 

As @DannyBearAgain and I both said, you need a subscription to make a manual recording.

If you have a VMB4540 or VMB5000 smarthub, you can see motion-triggered or audio-triggered local recordings from the app.  @DannyBearAgain left that part out of his reply, and I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the feature, and its limitations.

[24Woodland]

Thanks. I’m aware NOW that the trial is over, yes. But I had hoped from the get go to build a local and “private” system, so I set it up from day one to record locally and allowed proxies for remote access already. I simply did not expect that I would be denied manual recording functions. It’s enough that the Arlo app doesn’t allow for manual deleting either! That’s a massive oversight. But, like I said, at least on Mac OS / iOS, I can capture video, audio and snapshots using Apple’s screencapture functions which works fine. I just don’t want any recordings in the cloud. There should be a cheaper plan for local functions if Arlo depends on the subscription model to survive, and I would gladly support it, but with all the other subscriptions an average household has, I’d expect more value/function for a tenner a month, and manual recording alone is not worth paying £10/month for all the Arlo equipment I already bought.

[StephenB]

---

@24Woodland wrote:

Thanks. I’m aware NOW that the trial is over, yes.

FWIW, I agree that local recording is lacking, and IMO it would be better if Arlo provided manual recording, browser access, and friend accounts if you have a smarthub but no subscription.

[24Woodland]

Especially that it’s fairly easy to circumvent the limitation. Anyone can login using the main account’s credentials. OK, so it must be one login instance at a time, but when do we all need to be watching the cams at once? And as for browser access, it’s just us perhaps, but we have yet to use the browser at all anyway. The whole point is remote access, and I’m more likely to have my mobile with me at all time than my computer.

Anyhoo… Needless to say, it’s poor customer service and/or awareness. More flexible and affordable plans for the local user, please.

[StephenB]

---

@24Woodland wrote:

Especially that it’s fairly easy to circumvent the limitation. Anyone can login using the main account’s credentials. OK, so it must be one login instance at a time, but when do we all need to be watching the cams at once? And as for browser access, it’s just us perhaps, but we have yet to use the browser at all anyway. 

---

Different folks have different needs.

There certainly are people who prefer to use the browser interface.  Some actually don't have a smartphone, so that is their only interface. 

In the case of account sharing, the second login results in the first phone being logged out.  In that case the first phone might not get notifications.  Geofencing also stops working when the app logs out.

So I do usually provide the full list of limitations, since most users don't provide enough info in their posts for me to tell what they care about.

---

@24Woodland wrote:

The whole point is remote access,

---

Which in the case of direct access to local storage, requires that

1. the ISP provides an IPv4 address
2. the ISP supports port forwarding and/or inbound VPN connections
3. the user has enough tech knowledge to set it up.

Mobile broadband providers and mobile hotspots don't allow (2).  Some newer landline providers don't either, because they are using carrier grade NAT (CGNAT) to work around the depletion of IPv4 addresses.

[DannyBearAgain]

@24Woodland ,

Thanks for the clarification on using the Apple screen shot or screen recording methods. Although a hit and miss approach to getting the details you need for identification.

Probably more useful than the arlo recording itself in court since it shows the time the event occurs within the video picture.

The video resolution does get reduced due to the smaller picture size of the mobile so  you miss out on facial details but you don’t miss much since arlo’s recordings get heavily compressed anyway so the facial detail is still blurred.

[24Woodland]

The iPhone will screen capture at its native 2532‑by‑1170-pixel resolution which is higher than 1920-by-1080 HD res. The iPad has a 2360-by-1640-pixel res with a lower pixel density than the iPhone (264 instead of 460 ppi) so you get as good of a recording as Arlo’s stream allows. To give you an idea, many TVs and monitors still have a 1080p, 72ppi res, hence Apple’s retina display “branding”. Essentially, you’d be recording the livestream without any compression. The only factor in quality degradation would be due to your WIFI signal strength.

[StephenB]

---

@24Woodland wrote:

The only factor in quality degradation would be due to your WIFI signal strength.

---

Not quite.  You are also recompressing the original recording, which will reduce quality somewhat.

[24Woodland]

I would agree with you if we were talking about recording from, let’s say a SLR and choosing a MP4 format as opposed to RAW, but given the quality of the stream, doing a comparaison, the quality of the video I get from the screen capture versus the stream is pretty much as seen on the screen, and certainly better than Arlo’s compressed files. You can certainly tell by their size too. I’ll investigate further by opening an Arlo clip versus a screen capture and analyse the footage in FCP. I’m rather curious now… But given the poor quality of the files Arlo stores, versus the videos I captured using screen capture, I have a feeling the Arlo’s compression is much higher. Do you know the specification of the format and comp level used by Arlo? I’d be curious to know.

[StephenB]

---

@24Woodland wrote:

I would agree with you if we were talking about recording from, let’s say a SLR and choosing a MP4 format as opposed to RAW,

---

FWIW, I also think Arlo is over-compressing the camera steams.

But no matter how you slice it, recompressing any video can never improve the quality, it can only reduce it.  So there will be some loss of quality (perhaps slight) when you record the video playing on the screen.  

In the specific case of iOS, I've found that it will sometimes drop frames.  It apparently uses variable frame rates for screen recording, and if there isn't much changing in the video it might decide it doesn't need to record the changes.  Though I haven't tested this in a while, and current iOS might behave a bit differently.

---

@24Woodland wrote:

 Do you know the specification of the format and comp level used by Arlo? I’d be curious to know.

---

The codec is HEVC for 2K and 4K, and AVC for 1080p.  

A typical Ultra mp4 shows this info in MediaInfoXP

Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : HEVC
Format/Info                              : High Efficiency Video Coding
Format profile                           : Main@L5@Main
Codec ID                                 : hvc1
Codec ID/Info                            : High Efficiency Video Coding
Duration                                 : 12 s 350 ms
Bit rate                                 : 2 419 kb/s
Width                                    : 3 840 pixels
Height                                   : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate                               : 20.000 FPS
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.015
Stream size                              : 3.58 MiB (98%)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2023-09-05 22:48:59
Tagged date                              : UTC 2023-09-05 22:48:59
Color range                              : Full
Color primaries                          : BT.709
Transfer characteristics                 : BT.709
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.709
SEI_rbsp_stop_one_bit                    : Missing
Codec configuration box                  : hvcC

Audio
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : AAC LC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID                                 : mp4a-40-2
Duration                                 : 12 s 103 ms
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 56.0 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 128 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 1 channel
Channel layout                           : C
Sampling rate                            : 16.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 15.625 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 82.7 KiB (2%)
Default                                  : Yes
Alternate group                          : 1
Encoded date                             : UTC 2023-09-05 22:48:59
Tagged date                              : UTC 2023-09-05 22:48:59