Reolink Q2 Product Roadmap Learn More
Unveiling the New Standard in Clarity With #Reolink16MP Series Learn More
Reolink App v4.44 Released Learn More
Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Second, isn't it the users responsibility to manage battery life, and not yours by restricting access? For instance, my argus 2s are plugged to a solar panel and constantly at max charge during the day, it's a shame I can't access it via web browser...
I'm using Argus Eco and PT cameras from a few weeks only, and very strongly agree with that statement. Reolink people should be aware that we have not chosen these models by whim, but because the required position of the camera doesn't make possible a plug or a POE, but this should not imply such cutting of many basic features whose relationship with the battery is not clear, and moreover when most, if not all, of battery-power users have solar panels as well.It looks as the battery-powered cameras were the "poor relation" with respect to the rest of Reolink devices, thus using the charging issue as an excuse to cut some features that actually could be easily implemented but we, users, need: web browser access, "common user" type, motion detection area (!!!), saving to FTP server (!!!) or privacy mask, to say the most obvious ones for me. Escapes me what most of these have to do with battery level but, anyway, if the phone and PC applications are able to know the battery status and whether the camera is connected to a power source (solar panel or other), I don't see what problem would be to implement something as simple as: - Define what charging threshold would each "problematic" feature require.- If the user configures some feature requiring a given battery level and it is likely to fall below the threshold, notify the user that feature will be on hold until battery recharging.- Moreover, there could be an overall, user-defined, threshold for battery warning, although never less than the default, factory defined, one (this would cover the case the user was a long distance away from the camera and would prefer to have some security margin to deal with the issue).As Vincent Le Bourlot and other participants have said, it is the users responsibility to manage battery.
In order to reduce false alarms, it's advised to combine the methods of setting up the proper sensitivity and defining proper motion detection areas on Reolink Client software.[/quote]Although tweaking sensitivity may do the trick in some situations it is not by no means a solution because it also affects distance and on time catching of real intrusions, so defeating the purpose of having a camera to detect them as soon as possible. The same is true for detection areas, of course very useful to mark where you don't want to get an alarm, but no at all to discern about what is causing it.[quote quote=1458619]Intensive motion like rain/snowflakes, insects attracted by IR lights, may also cause frequent alarms which may not have a good solution to it.
In this and previous threads you have already received an excellent idea to largely reduce this problem.
You could at the very least allow for FTP transfer to a customer's own equipment in the same way you allow for emails to be sent. Whether the video is uploaded to your AWS bucket or a customer's own site should be no difference in power requirements.
I fully endorse that request. The usual 'to prevent battery drainage' mantra is a complete nonsense on this regard.
Welcome Back!
Hi there! Join the Commnunity to get all the latest news, tips and more!