I’d have to agree Framerate. One of the worst parts about some camera’s is motion blur. If trying to capture someone in the act of a crime they are usually not going to be walking around.
Has any of your testing been done in low light without IR?
I appreciate your efforts in being transparent and honest with consumers. It’s nice to feel like our input is being considered.
Framerate.
Framerate
Framerate.
Thank you for the reply. I look forward to the release of RTSP. Can you tell us as to when V2.3 will be available?
I vote Image Compression. If I pause the video, I want a clear image of a face or license plate or whatever that I can give to the cops.
Even at a low 5 fps, you can see what is moving and what is going on, so I’m not sure why most are voting for increased Framerate. Maybe Wyze could give a better definition of the terms involved. For example, is Framerate the same thing as the concept of “Shutter speed” from still photography, where, if the “shutter” is open longer during the image capture, then if something is moving during that time, it will have motion blur in the image. Or, is Framerate unrelated to motion blur?
For me: if lower frame rate = more motion blur, then that’s bad. if lower frame rate = less images per second, but the images stay the same clarity, I’d prefer that (down to a certain point).
Could the folks voting Framerate elaborate on why that seems to be the top vote-getter so far?
Frame rate =FPS of frames per second. It makes the video look smoother and less choppy. Higher frame rate does not create motion blur. 5 fps would basically make using RTSP unusable for most applications.
Can you explain your position further? (that 5 fps would make RTSP unusable) in what scenarios?
To me, what that means is: by taking away bandwidth from making each still frame clearer, you have have more frames to make motion look smoother. So, to be unusable, it would mean something like: person walks up to your front door. Then, in 1/5th of a second, they reach over, take your package, and hide it under their coat. The theft was missed since the “frame rate of the camera was too low.” Then they walk away.
So my point is, even at 5 fps, you’re not going to miss much of the action. You’re going to see them reach out, take the package, hide it, then walk away. You’re going to be able to see what happens even at such a low fps.
But, on the other hand, the trade off of increased framerate is that you took away bandwidth from frame clarity. Each frame image gets compressed more, so when the thief looks at the camera and you zoom in, its just a mush of pixels and it’s less useful for identification.
@ArthurH: I think you should clarify your definitions:
This is an interesting concept. That a lower frame rate will result in a sharper image. Since I have cameras that give me almost complete control, I will try changing the camera frame rate to 5 fps and try see if there is a noticable difference. I don’t know that compression would vary inversely with frame rate, but I will try to see.
Could you not have some advanced settings that allow us to tweak the bitrate, framerate, and image quality? I don’t think a single preset will work well for everybody.
I like it.
I would like supported support for RTSP.
You might make it user selective option to do it without a password or with.
The assumption is that, given the same bitrate, if you send out more frames, the each of the frames must be compressed more (less sharp or detailed). If you send out less frames, in the bitrate, each of the frames can have less compression and be sharper or more detailed.
The poll put out there by @ArthurH is posed as a tradeoff question, so the assumption is that the assumed bitrate should be the same when trading off framerate vs compression.
Alternatively, he also asked if folks would be ok with a higher overall bitrate, which is a different choice that could enable higher framerate or less compression, or both at some grey area in between.
In non - technical terms, the overall choice for me is to have better clarity… A sharper picture to identify faces /objects.
I would like RTSP to be added soon.
I run my non Wyze cameras at 5fps. That is good enough for capturing security events. I would push for better quality video over faster frame rate. You want to be able to pause the video and make out objects, faces, colors, other detail. Plus this keeps back end storage use lower. There may be scenarios where you want faster FPS, but for my use cases, monitoring the surroundings of my house, slower FPS works great.
Would love to see the RTSP option as a work around until hopefully full having Home Assistant integration.
I’d like a ‘security’ preset where the FPS is capped at 5 or 10 with a faster shutter speed. This way you get crisp individual frames as opposed to smooth motion.
Overall, I’d like to be able to set the options manually but a preset is better than nothing.
This makes me wonder if it can be implemented with 2 sliders, setting wise…
Slider 1: Left is Quality, Right is FPS
Slider 2: Bitrate (This would hopefully let people adjust to their wifi capacity)
Does this mean that REAL TIME STREAMING PROTOCOL will not be compatible with Wyzsecam V1?
im just guessing but there might be some mechanical limitation for the V1’s as there was for being able to turn off the IR leds but keep night vision on if that is indeed the case. I do not speak for Wyze on this, just an educated guess.
hmm… reading in the Google Assistant roadmap thread…
According to @Frederik
targeting a Q1 2019 released.
The biggest hurdle for the moment is the fact that the protocol that we are using for Alexa is not supported by Google. We therefore have to re-package the stream in a new protocol ( <nerd alert>HLS instead of RTSP</nerd alert>).And yes, March 31st is still Q1.
So they are already using RTSP for Alexa ?!?!
But cant use it with Google…
Does that mean this roadmap and the google assistant road map are incompatible?
I really want these cameras to work with my BlueIris server…
but I also really want to call up the cameras onto my chromecasts with Google Assistant…
