the motion tracking of the v3 pan cam is a nice idea, but it often becomes useless at night when it fixates on lights and shadows from an approaching car, rather than the car itself.
I suggest that wyze change the motion detection for tracking to check exclusion areas before it decides to track motion.
It often ends up ‘staring at a wall’, rather than tracking a real object
Here is a wishlist that applies here that you can vote on to show support.
it shouldnt be tied to cams plus. the responsible algorithm appears to be in the camera, I’d call this a bug, but the developers probably think they designed it that way. If they do - they render the pan feature pretty useless. it should check the exclusion zones first, then decide if tracking is warranted.
Similar, not the same
not a wish list, but an ineffective feature
It used to be; now object recognition is a server function. There might be some edge capability for some models but it apparently isn’t being used.
Thanks. I somehow missed voting for this earlier.
im not talking about object detection. motion detection as associated with pan is outside of that and it isnt checking the detection zone. To me, that’s a bug because it makes the follow motion unusable.
maybe it isnt clear. the current state isnt usable because if there is a wall in the FOV of the camera, and a light source is waved at it , then the camera will see that as motion and try to follow it,
In that case - the camera ends up staring at the wall for a while.
if you set detection zone to exclude the wall, this has no effect on it attempting to follow the light flash, and there it sits - staring at the wall.
I dont think it was intended to work that way and should be treated as a deficiency if not an outright bug.
Having the camera distracted and staring at the wall ( pondering it’s navel ) - causes it to miss the car driving by - which is what we actually wanted to see. )
easily blinded and distracted is a horrible feature for a security camera. someone might actually die because this bug isnt being treated seriously.
How is that perspective?
Wyze can either fix this, or they should take a disclaimer and warn people " please dont used motion tracking in cases where security is concerned as it may end up staring at the wall while the bad guys do their thing"
Motion detection AND object recognition are a server functions. A few camera models might be capable of determining motion, but it seems Wyze isn’t using it.
no. wrong on so many levels…motion detection goes back to the earliest cameras. pixel differences or pir. object detection tends to be cloud based
That was before they lost the license to the edge software. Try to keep up.
Motion tracking is strictly based on pixel change. Mine tracks motion even with no Internet connection.
Best you can do is vote on that wishlist topic. I wouldn’t call it unusable as it is now, I have two and they mostly work how I want them to, occasionally getting confused.
Limiting the tracking area and/or having detection zone apply would be nice. I’m not holding my breath though, maybe in a future pan model.
Changing your “home” position can help in some cases, or even relocating the camera if needed.
tell me what that has to do with camera based motion detection. thanks… as dave says in his comments - motion detection doesnt require internet.
As far as I know, pan cam’s detection area only applies only to that point when the zone is created. It’s useless I know, that’s why I don’t have it set at all. As for it following all light changes, that’s the way it was designed. The only limit is its range of motion. If you don’t want it to, disable motion tracking. I do that when it’s windy.
yes. because in terms of the motion following - it doesnt check that definition before it engages motion tracking. so useless seems appropriate - for motion tracking.
They have other bugs in the event notification and record functions which arent the topic of this post, and i dont want to distract from the specific that im addressing here with motion following. ( example - tree waving in a non-detection zone generates an off camera analysis - and the event triggers with a parked vehicle but the only motion was tree waving. in that case - the tree was outside of the detection zone and in an exclusion area - but again - that deviates from this particular bug report, so i dont want to go off on a tangent - this particular example seems common to all the cams with the possible exception of the bc pro - but the problem here is similar in that they dont ignore motion that isnt inside of the detection mask)
in the OP case as well as the example distraction, the motion detected event is internal to the camera, and appears to be triggered without masking it against the valid detection area. in the OP - the motion tracking software is engaged and doesnt require internet. it is particularly egregious since the camera often goes and studies a wall instead of tracking the real target.
in the example distraction - a motion event is sent to the server, and the server properly identifies a vehicle, but the vehicle wasnt moving, but a tree in the exclusion zone was moving.
I want to focus on the motion tracking as more serious as it totally blinds the camera to the real target.
Title: A Thief’s Guide to Disabling a Wyze Pan Cam V3
In the shadowy underbelly of the city, where the line between legality and larceny blurred into a gray haze, there was a figure known only as “The Whisper.” The Whisper was not your average thief; he was an artist of stealth, a maestro of misdirection, and above all, a tech-savvy criminal with a knack for exploiting the weaknesses of modern security systems. His latest target was a high-end electronics store, renowned for its state-of-the-art surveillance, including the much-vaunted Wyze Pan Cam V3.
As The Whisper prepared for his heist, he chuckled softly at the irony. The very technology meant to thwart him was about to become his unwitting accomplice. He’d read the forums, the cries for help from well-meaning homeowners, and he knew exactly how to turn this sophisticated piece of equipment against itself.
The night was moonless, providing the perfect cover for The Whisper’s operation. He approached the store, his movements fluid and silent, a shadow among shadows. The Wyze Pan Cam V3, perched at the corner of the building, was his first obstacle. Known for its motion tracking capabilities, this camera was supposed to be the bane of intruders like him. But The Whisper had a plan, one that exploited a flaw in its design, as noted by a user named michael_winslow in the Wyze forums.
He pulled out a small, LED flashlight, a tool of his trade not for illumination but for distraction. With a flick of his wrist, he triggered the light, casting a beam towards the camera. The camera, designed to track motion, was instead captivated by the sudden change in light. Its lens swiveled, following the dancing light as The Whisper moved it in a slow, deliberate pattern, mimicking the movement of a car’s headlights passing by. The camera, true to the forum’s complaints, fixated on the light changes, ignoring the predefined detection areas meant to focus its attention on real threats.
The Whisper smiled under his mask, knowing that the camera was now ‘staring at a wall’ rather than tracking him, the actual intruder. According to the forum discussion, this was a regular occurrence at night, where the camera would chase after the shadows and lights of passing vehicles, rendering its motion tracking feature almost useless in low light conditions.
With the camera distracted, The Whisper slipped past its gaze, moving with precision towards the back door of the store. His next step was to ensure the camera remained oblivious. He pulled out a small, portable projector from his bag, setting it up in a discreet location where it would project moving patterns of light onto the wall opposite the camera. The camera, still under the illusion of tracking light changes, spun around, following the projected dance of shadows and lights, completely ignoring the zone it was supposed to monitor.
Inside the store, The Whisper worked swiftly, his knowledge of the camera’s limitations giving him the confidence of a man walking in daylight. He knew that Wyze needed to update their system to check exclusion areas before deciding to track motion, but until then, this egregious security flaw was his key to success.
As he left the store, his pockets heavier with the latest gadgets, The Whisper couldn’t help but think about how technology, when not perfectly implemented, becomes a double-edged sword. The Wyze Pan Cam V3, meant to be a guardian, had become a blind spectator in his tale of thievery, all thanks to a simple understanding of its design flaw. He disappeared into the night, leaving behind a store untouched in appearance but significantly lighter in inventory, all under the watch of a camera that had been outsmarted by its own design.
The story of The Whisper and the Wyze Pan Cam V3 served as a stark reminder in the forums and beyond: security is only as strong as its weakest link, and sometimes, that link is a light chasing camera, blind to the real threats in the dark.
fwiw - i posted the story on my FB publicly… same story as here,. I’m just tickled by Grok’s abilities in story telling… Mike Winslow
meh… if you describe it properly as a security exploit, it will get more attention… it’s an algorithm in the camera we’re talking about, not AI by any stretch of imagination
Definitely not AI. Barely an algorithm for that matter. X pixels change - re-center on that area. Rinse, repeat.