it’s a real data pig, and video goes up and back to the wyze server.. wyze needs to look at this. I’ve done my work. they need to fix this.. not hard - xfinity will give bandwidth use.. open up a duocam dual screen on your android and let it play a couple hours and watch the Gigabytes fly by. and of course - the android is on the same home wifi as the cameras.. Im pretty certain that running the video to a pc browser has the video stream going up to the server instead of staying local ( @WyzeBen )
I think you already debated this to death 11 months ago. The web view design is what it is by design. What we debate here will change nothing.
2 Likes
High resolution cameras and capped ISP service isn’t a good combination. It’s not just Wyze.
You’re the first person I’ve seen asking Wyze to DECREASE the video quality.
Each cam stream takes about 1Mbit/sec (around 400-500 MBytes per hour or 0.5 GB per hour) which is extremely high compression and a perfectly reasonable amount of data use, in fact I wish it was higher. Note for the duo if you’re watching both cams it will be double that bandwidth.
If you want to watch them constantly on the LAN don’t use web view, use the app. You can use an android emulator on a computer, or get a dedicated tablet and output it to a TV, etc. As long as the camera and app are on the same network, the traffic will stay local.
1 Like
I think you already debated this to death 11 months ago. The web view design is what it is by design. What we debate here will change nothing.
… no, they fixed the prior issues so that data remains loca. im talking about the duo cam here. do you own one?
you miss the point. the video stream needs to stay on the local network. i already can change the quality in the android app for this camera, but the stream goes up and back to the wyze server from camera to client when the camera and client are on the same local net. so, you get twice the data burden to your isp, instead oif none.
once the connection is validated, the video stream should be direct from camera to client without the wyze server.. this is a cost to wyze’s server bandwidth and is totally unnecessary.
1 Like
do your math again for two cams at 2k, then multiply it by two for the trip up and then back from your home router to the wyze server.. trust me it’s a whole lot more than what you typed. you realize that this new cam connection involved 2 2k cam streams, right?
1 Like
Web view needs to use Wyze’s servers, there is no web server built into the cams, even if there was, browsers have security preventing them from talking to the local network. There are other ways I mentioned to keep the traffic on the LAN (actually another potential way is Tinycam, which I believe is also capable of keeping traffic local).
Either get an unlimited internet plan (with Xfinity often it is just the cost of renting one of their gateways that gets you unlimited data) or use another method to watch the cams. This is not something Wyze can “fix” for you.
My math is correct for ONE CAM (I even mentioned it would be double that if you are watching both cams on the duo). Yes, because it is “looping” out then back in, it will consume the same amount both upload and download. Multiply those numbers by however many cams you’re watching at the same time.
The 2K doesn’t really matter, Wyze targets to use about the same amount of bandwidth regardless of the resolution, by using more compression. In reality the 1080P and 2K cams are about the same resolution (1920x1080 is one of several types of 2K).
This is not correct. If properly coded with a certificate authority, a server on the local network can serve https/tls pages on the LAN. I have one.
Not always. What if you’re not on the same LAN as the cameras?
And why did Wyze go this route? It’s likely because that would entail adding a web server (or some more modules) to the camera firmware. I don’t know for sure if this is the real reason, but it’s plausible.
Gee really??? No kidding.
You’re talking about something 1000% different. A web site you access within your browser, whether on the internet or your LAN, cannot then tell your browser to access a local device on the LAN directly, at least not without totally defeating major security protections of the browser. The LAN server would need to access the cams, then send that stream to the browser, just like web view does.
They would have to design and sell a LAN web view server, since web view lets you view multiple cams, unless you wanted to load a different web site for each cam and not have them all in one place. It just isn’t feasible. Obviously these cams don’t have the processing power to serve a web site anyway.
For most people this isn’t an issue. For people who have limited/metered internet connections, that’s not Wyze (or any web site owner’s) problem. I mean do people complain to Youtube that they’re taking up too much of their internet plan?
A web server can access any host on the same LAN (or even outside the LAN) as long as a network connection can be set. You can use any protocol (mqtt, bluetooth for local connects, and any low-level protocol), not just http/https.
Before I started with Wyze cameras, I used another brand and I had a Firefox to stream its live view.
Again, the Wyze web view server does not sit on your LAN. That’s the issue, and browser security is why the stream has to go out to their server and back in.
If the server sat on your LAN it would behave the same way, cameras would talk to the web server, the web server would then talk to your browser.
If a web server/site could tell a browser with default settings to access and interact with LAN IPs it would be a huge security hole that could be exploited.
Not sure why you keep insisting that some totally unrelated architecture/setup has anything to do with this discussion about web view.
I have a web server installed on my own LAN, and it’s accessed using https.
Wait until Wyze rtsp settles down. I’ll code a local web server to serve Wyze cameras on a browser.
Have you ever coded a web server?
Do you read at all or just hit reply blindly?
I was commenting on this as a general statement, but now you’re limiting it to just WebView in particular.
Edit: I’ll point out, too, that WebView actually accesses your cameras! It’s using WebRTC.
Time to discard my Duocam. I have great 1G Fios internet. Everything else works great, including Ring. Ive tried all 2.4 fixes with the Duocam. Works for 24-36 hours and then loses internet connections. Time to switch systems.