RLC-510WA 16:9 aspect ratio

dio1975

Hello,
I have my first Reolink RLC-510WA camera which replaces an RLC-410W which just died.
These are the details of the camera:
· Build No.build 23070602
· Hardware No.IPC_MS1NA45MP
· Config Version v3.0.0.0
· Firmware Version v3.0.0.2429_23070602
I noticed this camera has the following resolutions available:
1) 2560x1920
2) 2560x1440
3) 2048x1536
4) 2304x1296
1) and 3) are in the 4:3 format, 2) and 4) are in the 16:9 format
Unfortunately, the 16:9 look like a stretched 4:3 as the image is flattened. Could be just a bug in the firmware ?

Crimp On

I have an RLC-510WA. Upon reading this, I thought, "What the hell?". I have always set camera "Clear" resolution to be the highest possible. Sure enough, this observation is correct.
The higher resolution picture is 4:3 and the lower resolution is 16:9.

I believe this is related to (a) the actual camera sensor and (b) the computer display (monitor). My monitor for example, has a resolution of 1,920 x 1,080. (It is also VERY old. Have not considered upgrading the monitor because there is not physical space for a taller monitor.) Thus, 2,560x1,920 is more pixels than my monitor has available. In addition, even when the Client program is "full screen", only a portion of those 1,920 x 1,080 pixels are available to display the camera image. Thus, the Windows Client must take the camera image and shrink it so that it will fit inside the space where the image is supposed to appear. Suppose the number of vertical pixels in the display area is X. Fitting 1,920 pixels into X results in a ratio of Y = X/1,920. Multiply 2,560 by Y to get how many pixels wide the picture will appear.

If the pixels are "square", then 2,560 x 1,920 is a ratio of 4:3. 2,560 x 1,440 is a ratio of 16:9. I have taken snapshots of the RLC-510WA set to both resolutions, and the 16:9 image does indeed appear "flattened". However, looking closely the two images cover exactly the same view. Each of the four corners of both pictures are identical.

The RLC-510WA specs quote a resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels (4,915,200 pixels), which Reolink describes as 5MB (close enough). Thus, a Clear resolution of 2,560x1,920 will result in the most accurate representation of "what the camera sees." But, what if the customer network cannot support this amount of bandwidth? Lower resolution images require less bandwidth.

What an interesting puzzle. Thanks for pointing this out.

dio1975

After a few days now I got used to 4:3 format, also this covers better my back garden due to wider vertical angle, so from this point of view I'm happy with this.
RLC-510WA replaces RLC-410W, the latter one being discontinued.
Unfortunately RLC-510WA is not "a better RLC-410W", it does not offer better quality (or similar) footage, but quite the opposite in my opinion, no matter the encoding format.
I wonder if anyone else had the opportunity to compare these.
I regret that RLC-410W is not available anymore, I was 101% satisfied with this camera. It's the camera that Reolink earn my trust with.
I still have 3 of these, I hope they will last forever

Although I must say RLC-510WA has better quality night footage, as the FPS will not drop in value, this never happened to RLC-410W,