Posts made by Crimp On_62210811129

Is the Windows 10 machine connected to the same home network as the Reolink?
Is this a Reolink NVR system or a group of individual Reolink cameras?

Would like to know more about what causes text messages to be sent to the phone number being used for an LTE camera.

Yes, Yes. Better and Cheaper. Love to see that.

There is an option not to record sound, so my assumption is that the question is "is there a way to keep the sound recording and also reduce wind noise?" My guess is "no".

and yet another moment. wrong version of picture.

camera-mike-hole.jpg

"Senior Moment". sorry.

The microphone should appear as a tiny hole in the bottom of the case. Attached is a picture of my RLC-410-WS camera showing the microphone hole.

Is that a typo, " expired in january 2026". Today is only June 2021.

I use only the Reolink Client or web interface to view my Reolink cameras. I have observed that the RLC cameras respond to ICMP (ping) requests, so as a matter of idle curiosity I set up a Ping Monitoring program to watch some of them. Was surprised to see that they seem to fail to respond enough times to trigger an alert from the monitoring program.

Ping is a common networking tool often used to verify that devices are 'alive' or that the network is functioning correctly. I had problems with a PowerLine link supporting Reolink cameras and replaced that PowerLine with a WiFi link and I am concerned about the stability of that link. It is really annoying to find that my security cameras have been off-line for hours (or days) because of network problems.

There is no rule that devices must respond to ping requests. Many devices respond to pings and others do not. Smart speakers, for example: (Sonos One does. Echo Dot does not. Nest Mini does.) Windows Firewall defaults to 'not'. My first thought upon getting alerts that Reolink cameras had 'gone down' was, "oh, no. another network problem!" But, the pattern is pretty clear. One Reolink camera will be reported missing and exactly one minute later, it's back. Some hours later, a different camera gets reported 'down', and one minute later it's 'up'.

I posted the question to see if other users experience the same behavior with RLC cameras. If NO ONE does, I may have an unexplained network problem.

I've been monitoring some devices on my network with EMCO Ping Monitor 8 (Free for Windows up to 5 devices) and have noticed that my RLC-410-5MP and RLC-420-5MP cameras will fail to respond 3-4 times each day. EMCO tries to connect once each minute, so I will get a message that the state of a device was changed to 'Down' and a minute later the state changes to 'Up'.

Has anyone seen similar behavior?

My experiment with the RLC-510WA was successful. On the FTP Settings menu, I selected "Image Only" at 8am. From that time on, the only files sent to me FTP server. (Personally, I do not find these images particularly useful.)

Have no idea what would would be different about the RLC-510A.

Oh, wow. I will have to test that.

I have RLC-410-5MP and RLC-510WS cameras. Both have FTP settings for File Type that include:
Clear Video and Image
Fluent Video and Image
Standard Video and Image
Image Only

Seems strange that a similar camera would not have this same 'drop down' menu.

I do not understand what static IP addresses has to do with power surge or blackout. If power is interrupted, all cameras will turn off. (along with everything else). When power comes back, the network DHCP server will provide IP addresses to the cameras. I have my DHCP server set to "assign" IP addresses to cameras based on their MAC address. Power has gone off many times, and the cameras always come back on line with the correct IP addresses.

HOWEVER... my guess is that IP address has nothing to do with the issue. The only way the smartphone app can view cameras is by their UID. Each camera opens a link to the Reolink "cloud" announcing "I can be found HERE." If someone has the smartphone app, the UID, user name, and password, they can connect to the camera.

What I have found is that it is easiest to configure the Reolink "app" by connecting the smartphone to the LAN where the cameras are located, click the "Add" button, and then select "Scan LAN" (not QR code or entering data). Within seconds, all the cameras will be found and added to the app. Then, disconnect from WiFi and use the app over the LTE (cell) connection and verify that cameras can be viewed.

In an outdoor relaxation setting, I like something similar to the birdhouse that started this discussion.
For example, a fake birdhouse up against the wall (or whatever the camera is attached to). The camera can be inside with the lens blocking the hole so that birds are not tempted to enter. Or, a hanging plant with the camera peeking out from under it or around the side of it.

I, personally, want security cameras to be a deterrent, so the more visible the better. Is there a reason why some bottles of model airplane paint would not accomplish what you want? (at much lower cost and available today at any craft store or Amazon)

I volunteer to be a Beta tester if this capability can be developed. I understand testing will be a chore because camera firmware has to be changed back and forth. I'd suggest developing for the camera web interface first and add functionality to the Mac/Windows Client after the firmware works on the camera.
I have RLC-410-5MP, RLC-420-5MP, RLC-510WA. Would even buy a 4K camera if the developers want to start at the high end.

On that screen shot of the PHYLINK camera, I am confused by the options:
Minimum length of motion. To me this means "if motion does not persist longer than this, I don't want to know about it."
Minimum ignore time of motion. This sounds like saying the same thing, only backwards.

This is indeed the "crux of the matter". The current program compares one frame to the NEXT frame and calculates how many pixels have changed. If the number of changed pixels is greater than the cutoff value, by definition there is "motion".
The proposal is to make the calculation more complicated. That is, to COUNT the number of frames that are different rather than trigger motion on one change. For example, every time one frame is different than the previous frame, increment the counter by one. If the new frame is not different than the previous frame, reset the counter to zero. When the counter reaches some value, declare "motion". Suppose a user says, "I do not want to see 'motion' that lasts for less than 2 seconds." Then the number of successive frames that change has to reach 2 times the number of frames per second. (At 20 frames per second, that would be 2*20 = 40). If there are 40 frames in a row that are 'different', then something I care about is 'moving'.

I understand this is NOT EASY. An insect may not "move enough" from one frame to another to meet the criterion.

But, that is the whole point of CHALLENGING programmers. They are SMART. They will find a way.

I have mentioned this several times. It makes SO much sense.

I also think there is no reason not to have SETTINGS for several parameters.
"Prerecord", for example, seems to be a fixed number of seconds or none at all.
The user should be able to set up to some maximum value, say 0-20 seconds.
Post record is the same.

I finally solved the "flying insect problem" by purchasing separate Infrared LED lights and placing them 6-8 ft. away from the camera. Bugs are drawn to them and do not appear to be BIG BRIGHT OBJECTS to the camera.

As one of the people who helped "Kickstart" the original Reolink Argus, I viewed that as an experiment and quickly learned the major differences between cameras with inexhaustible power and battery powered units. The PIR sensor rather than image processing to bring it to life. The short recordings. The limit on live viewing. Came to realize that battery cameras are not for me. All my Reolink's are now PoE or connected to a nearby electrical outlet. All my RLC's record to internal SD Card and FTP recordings to a server. No "Cloud".

Like mdunning, I would be interesting to learn if there are ANY battery power cameras (I view solar as still 'battery') that support protocols such as FTP, RTSP, ONVIF, etc.

I started to (try to) calculate what sort of solar/battery unit would be required to use a regular RLC camera "wirelessly". Looks like a camera might need as much as 2,880 watt hours to run 24 hours. (12 watts x 24 hours. Older cameras with less processing used less current.) My enthusiasm did not survive trying to find a solar/battery combination that would run the camera and charge a battery at the same time. With the right solar/battery combination, Blue Iris or FTP would work with any brand of camera supporting the right protocols, and Reolink's cameras are attractively priced.