Getting full use of 4K

[custin]

I have some 4K cameras (Ultra 2) and also some 2K and lesser cameras (Pro 2). I noticed that the 4K cameras are not as sharp as I'd like them to be, they seem to be as grainy as the lesser cameras. In the settings for the Ultra 2 you can check "Local 4K Live Streaming", but it says it is only available when your device is connected to your home network. Does this mean that I'm only getting 4K when looking at recorded videos? Because honestly the recorded videos don't look any better than the live stream. I feel like I paid for 4K but don't ever get to use it. Am I missing a setting somewhere?

[jguerdat]

An issue with the Ultras being 4k is that they also cover 180 degrees while your other cameras cover much less. That means the extra pixels may not be adding to the video the way you think. I haven't done the math to see what angle each pixel sees for each camera model but that's a likely scenario. Add to that the bitrate/compression being used to make the video streams manageable in terms of bandwidth and storage and you may find that there's not as much difference between camera models as expected, just as you've noted.

ALso, as long as your camera settings in Video Settings are the maximum you're getting 4k. You can also download a video on a computer to check the properties to verify it's set to 4k.

[StephenB]

---

@custin wrote:

 In the settings for the Ultra 2 you can check "Local 4K Live Streaming", but it says it is only available when your device is connected to your home network. Does this mean that I'm only getting 4K when looking at recorded videos? 

---

When your phone is connected to your home wifi, you should be seeing a 4K label on the livestream.  So check for that.

FWIW, I don't know of any phones that have 4K resolution.  Even new high-end phones like the iPhone 17 Pro Max are displaying about 2K on their screens.  So even if you see the 4K label, the phone is reducing the resolution to match the screen.

As far as picture quality goes, Arlo regrettably uses quite low bit rates, which does reduce the quality/sharpness a lot.

[Edinburgh_lad1]

So, as @StephenB is implying, it's not so much about the resolution, which would have been fine if it were just HD, but low bit rates. There is is a statement on the support pages for Pro 2 that says that if you have the Pro 2 and don't subscribe, the bit rate is, shockingly,  even lower. This statement was added well after Pro 2 was released, which raises the question of whether this is ok to do that.

So, the 4k may be a marketing strategy because very few out there (me including until @StephenB had made me aware) know about bit rate, compression, frames per secon, and that to display 4k, you need a 4k screen.

The only camera that Arlo publishes bit rate values for is the Pron 2 - you can find that in the manual.

And it looks like they lowered bit rates for Ultra, too, over the past year or two because the detail isn't there anymore, especially at nighttime, at least in my case.

[Edinburgh_lad1]

Sorry for spelling mistakes

[StephenB]

---

@Edinburgh_lad1 wrote:

The only camera that Arlo publishes bit rate values for is the Pro 2 - you can find that in the manual.

---

The minimum requirements KB article gives some idea:

• https://kb.arlo.com/000062043/What-are-the-minimum-requirements-for-installing-and-using-my-Arlo-sys...

Though I think these are really ceilings, and the actual bit rates are a bit less.

I've requested that there be an option to increase bitrate while lowering retention to compensate.  If they ever do that, then it would also make sense to increase the local recording bitrates (even if you don't have a subscription).