• February 04, 2023, 09:26:37 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


This Forum Beta is ONLY for registered owners of D-Link products in the USA for which we have created boards at this time.

Author Topic: F/W 1.20 vs F/W 1.10 observations  (Read 2816 times)


  • Level 10 Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
F/W 1.20 vs F/W 1.10 observations
« on: December 13, 2014, 11:50:43 AM »

1) See this post


You need to use ?profileid=1  when looking at the image snapshots url to get HD image. Else F/W 1.20 will pull an undefined profile with NON HD image and looks like crap with waves and stuff in it.

2) I have recording to SD card set to profile 2, 720p, 30 fps on both cameras.  50meg max.
I noticed my indoor 1.20 f/w camera was creating 1 minute files (in auto, was grainy, so not much compression with every pixel changing every frame), vs the outdoor view, which was 3-4 minute files. What the heck I thought.
I put the 1.20 f/w camera on the outdoor view, and it would not get to 50 meg, but stop short at 36-43 meg before starting a new file.

I shut down recording and put the SD card in my computer and examined the files. 

I already knew the 1.10 card would record to SD about 7 fps second.. this would give me at least 26-32  hours before it would 'roll over' and I would lose data.

What I found was that - the 1.20 F/W is actually recording at 26 FPS!!!! holy smokes!!! That's amazing!!!    So I can back that down to say 15 fps and actually get 15fps.

So F/W 1.20 must have a bunch of optimizations finally to make it really run a lot better.



  • Level 10 Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
Re: F/W 1.20 vs F/W 1.10 observations
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2014, 08:42:09 AM »

I must say I am mistaken in a part or 2.

I took the 1.20 cameras and pointed them outside over night - Low Noise setting... 7 fps.. when morning came - that became 9 fps, then up to 26 fps when it totally whited out.  Now in auto mode, I'm back to 26 fps during daylight on 1.20 and 11 fps on 1.10.

So it is like the h264 compression is really working in 1.20, and 1.10 doesn't really have compression or a poorer implementation of it?

Still not sure why the 1.20 won't go to 50 megs a file.. I guess it fills up it's buffers and then compresses?