Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

HeneryH
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:50 pm

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by HeneryH »

adam7456 wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2023 4:36 am Given that VLC can play the H265 stream of the camera with no time delay issues, that points to BI5 having the problem.
Not completely accurate. VLC may be doing something in a different way that masks the problem.
User avatar
Pogo
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:21 pm
Location: Reportedly in the Area

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by Pogo »

Or corrects for the BI issue. Let the finger pointing begin!

While I'll agree that VLC is hardly the end-all in video stream analysis and can spit out some completely erroneous codec info from pre-determined sources at times (like DVR channel outputs with no camera attached to the input), it does do a pretty consistent job of reporting what it actually sees..., so does any platform that complies with even marginal ONVIV Profile S standards and basic RTSP protocol. Neither are very complicated when routinely implemented -- at H.264. H.265 is where it begins to lose consistentcy across the board from vendor to vendor to developer to developer to interpretation to interpretation.

And to proclaim Reolink as inherently problematic with multiple NVR platforms as described in multiple forums elsewhere is so flagrantly misleading it's ridiculous considering Reolink themselves would be the FIRST to advise of possible compatibility issues when not using their NVRs.

Also just for the record, I'm no Reolink champion by any means. I had three, tried to sell them all, was successful with two, couldn't give the RLC-811A away after 4 months of trying, tried some experimental firmware with nothing to lose, it fixed the notorious 811A / Blue Iris lag issue. Yay!

Also for the record, Reolink 4K cameras are not the only cameras to have problems in BI (or other NVR platforms) using H265 compression..., 4K or otherwise. Many other instances of cameras of lesser resolution not working well with BI when using H265 have been (and continue to) be reported. H265 is clearly not ready to be proclaimed anything else but 'still a work in progress' across the board at any reasonably serious level given so many proprietary variants and implementations -- not to mention the general lack of understanding among the majority of consumers and even pro-sumers about how vastly different the H265 technology actually functions compared to how H264 works. Different animals altogether. Interoperative compatibility is clearly not a priority among manufacturers and developers yet..., much like ONVIF itself had to (and still is) evolving as an actual applied standard.

But so much for the sermon -- hopefully with some educational merit for the sake of the 'correct I-Frame' propronents who aren't just thumbing through this on a phone in tl;dr mode.

As for Reolink or BI support on this particular issue, good luck with either one providing much useful input at this stage of their respective attention spans and current product support priorities -- and their respective major product release problems, especially in the case of BI..., let alone having real-world concern for their actual customers.

In defense of Reolink, they obviously have a support tier that in the past has been responsive to the matter at the firmware development level -- to the extent of providing an actual solution to whatever the problem was/is. Continuing to pursue that angle shouldn't be dismissed because of frustration in dealing with inexperiened tier 1 intake screening. Move it up the ladder.

And fwiw, Indications from my current series of experiments and BI settings comparisons would indeed lean toward Reolink implementing a configuration workaround for the defaults provided by the various BI selections for Reolink cameras. More on that later, but at least Reolink did something to effectively provide a Blue Iris solution while Blue Iris is chasing memory leaks and the perfect marraige with CPAI.

I'm just here to support and promote a proven solution for the 811A that works under the particular conditions of my Blue Iris implementation on the hardware and network at my disposal.

All bullshit and useless opinion aside, the facts are: Another 2 days:00hrs:43min of perfect sync between a Reolink RLC-811A and Blue Iris with yet another different set of BI settings using the H265 main stream.

Maybe someone should tell Reolink and Blue Iris.
User avatar
TimG
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:45 am
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK.

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by TimG »

@Pogo: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :D
Forum Moderator.
Problem ? Ask and we will try to assist, but please check the Help file.
User avatar
Pogo
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:21 pm
Location: Reportedly in the Area

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by Pogo »

And all of my traditional mini-lights worked with no burnouts or dead strings anywhere. So there! LOL

Best of the Season to you as well. ;)
adam7456
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:30 pm

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by adam7456 »

Reolink provided a newer firmware for me to try. That did not solve the issue either. I purchased other models of the 4k cameras in my recent order and tested them out as well. I test an 820A, 833A, and an 842A. All three cameras experience the same issue as well. With all the other cameras disabled when set to 4k there is an immediate time delay that gets progressively worse. When the resolution is set to 2560 x 1440 the cameras have no time delay.
User avatar
Pogo
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:21 pm
Location: Reportedly in the Area

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by Pogo »

Not a very encouraging report.

I'm coincidentally doing some additional tesing now of my 811A. The time delay issue does not exist for me at full 4K resolution 25fps 4096 CBR. Sync has now been consistent for days. I am however noticing some stutter now and again with faster moving objects that appears to coincide precisely with the I-frame.

My next experiment is to install it on my Dahua NVR and see how it behaves there.

edit 5 minutes later: It broke it. LOL
User avatar
Pogo
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:21 pm
Location: Reportedly in the Area

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by Pogo »

adam7456 wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 9:43 pm Reolink provided a newer firmware for me to try. That did not solve the issue either. I purchased other models of the 4k cameras in my recent order and tested them out as well. I test an 820A, 833A, and an 842A. All three cameras experience the same issue as well. With all the other cameras disabled when set to 4k there is an immediate time delay that gets progressively worse. When the resolution is set to 2560 x 1440 the cameras have no time delay.
Having pretty much exhausted all efforts to identify any lingering issues with my particular 811A situation and essentially finding none of any significance, I'll simply offer a couple of concluding observations and suggestions.

First and foremost, any Reolink advice received in a Blue Iris forum will generally be negative if not downright abusive to anyone daring to even bring the subject to light. "Blue Iris isn't the problem. Reolink is junk. You're not cool unless you use Dahua. The end." Not quite that bad here, but one can be crucified elsewhere for bringing up any Reolink related topic. And while I'm of the opinion that the subject being discussed is as equally applicable to Blue Iris as Reolink, well..., generally not in Blue Iris forums.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reolinkcam/, https://www.reddit.com/r/reolink/, https://community.reolink.com/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueIris/ are other active and useful resources that shouldn't be ignored -- especially the latest thread in the Blue Iris link.

And as for throwing more Reolink cameras at Blue Iris to see what may or may not stick, I would back track a bit for a fairly comprehensive review of the Blue Iris machine and its fundamental configuration to ensure nothing is being overlooked (or taken for granted) that could possibly be introducing performance issues with more demanding higher end cameras..., keeping in mind that VLC is basically just a player / analyzer and Blue Iris is a very comprehensive and complex system. Apples and oranges by comparison when relying on VLC for authoritative information as may relate to a given BI performance issue. tinyCam Pro will basically provide the same basic codec results as VLC.

Another important aspect that hasn't been explored is the Blue Iris system hardware. What is it and how is it set up? The problem may be the system itself and the notorious Reolink delay time issue is simply a coincidental symptom.

I notice in the status window screen shot there is no hardware acceleration indicated and the bit rates are exceedingly high in general. It was mentioned that various HA settings were tried. This should have been applied in the 'Cameras' section of the Main Settings page and then each camera restarted with it as the default for the settings to be applied. Direct-to-Disk should also be selected as the preferred video file format and compression method.

And before the advice to not use acceleraion in later generation Intel setups is suggested, try it anyway if using an Intel CPU/GPU. How much headroom efficiency does or doesn't exist is only a relative condition. How accurately and effectively h265 video is being processed (or not) is the issue here regardless.

And What processor are we talking about? (I recall Intel HA being mentioned somewhere along the line?)

Is there an additional graphics/display board somewhere in the mix fighting for control of the h265 processing?

What time server is being used and is it applied across the board -- as in everywhere on every device requiring a time stamp?

Another approach to all of it would obviously be to try a different brand of similarly capable camera. Amcrest would be my suggestion since they're basically OEM Dahua devices in Amcrest wrappers and relatively affordable. They're all over Amazon and you can get one in a day depending on your location. If it works, great. Keep it. If it lags like the Reolinks, there's obviously more work to be done elsewhere in figuring out why.

And we seem to have completely hijacked the thread from the OP @baj702. Hopefully the resulting barrage has been helpful/informative to the original request for assistance as well.
Last edited by Pogo on Fri Dec 29, 2023 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
adam7456
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:30 pm

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by adam7456 »

We did hijack the thread but baj702 had the exact same problem that I have and as you mentioned others had the same problem with the previous hardware models of the camera. That tells me it isn't my specific hardware, although I plan to set up a second computer which has a better graphics card to see rule out the current hardware as the problem. I've been travelling so I haven't had time to start going that direction.

I've been on forums a long time and fanboys of certain brands will always act like fools and crap of everything else. The truth is all generally available consumer grade cameras are garbage...but in many cases they are good enough to see what is or isn't happening. Reolink has been responsive to customers requests and provide integrated solutions and advanced features for the price point they are in.

A point I didn't mention in my previous post is that after I verified the 4k setting had the time delay and the 1440 setting did not, I then enabled 6 other cameras and repeated the test. With 7 cameras running at 1440 or 1080 there was no time delay. Bandwidth and processing power aren't the issue when it can handle that but a single 4k camera has serious lag. The hardware is an actual Dell server, dual CPUs with 12 cores each, and 128GB of ram.
User avatar
Pogo
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:21 pm
Location: Reportedly in the Area

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by Pogo »

You are assuming a lot just based on your hardware proclamation alone. And it may indeed be introducing your problem in some way or another. Building another dedicated box for the purpose of finding out is a good call, but don't go overboard with it. It isn't necessary and $200 should cover a more than adequate system anyway. Seriously. Blue Iris was designed around Windows and Intel. Lots of both around cheap.

I run 20 cameras on a Dell SFF 7020 Windows 10 Pro box with 16GB of RAM and a Gen-4 i7 at around 13% CPU / 2.2G RAM utilization with a fairly constant 9000.00kB/s - 300MP/s load and have no problem running an 811A at full bore hanging off a 2.4gHz Netgear/DD-WRT-7000 access point two more hops away from my Blue Iris rig..., and I'm blowing your doors off in the 811's 4K h265 performance even without any GPU support for the i7. That alone tells me your hardware is likely an issue in some form or another.

If building a dedicated Blue Iris box is in the cards, make it simple and effective -- like a Win10 Pro Gen-6 i7 32MB RAM box with a modest SSD for the OS / Blue Iris, a big spinner for storage and no fancy add-on graphics crap like it's some kind of game box. Many would advise staying away from Windows server for any number of reasons. I would just because and have no reason to disagree otherwise. Again, keep it simple for starters. It'll obviously get complicated soon enough all by itself..., especially when things start working right and the serious tweeking begins.

Note: A very important consideration when moving Blue Iris from one system to another is maintaining the integrity of the license info for product registration on the new system. BI must be unregistered on the old system before registration on the new one can successfully take place -- at least without a major hassle. Exporting the config for import to the new system is generally a fairly straightforward process as well unless you want to start from scratch with an entire new build anyway. I may be wrong, but believe the de-registration needs to be done while BI is still active on the original system in order for the transition to go without a hitch. You'll want to double check all that stuff just to be safe.

Also, some careful consideration given to my previous post may possibly yield a degree of illumination to your existing issues if the time and effort are applied to doing so.

I've been around the forums a long time myself. The screen was black, the curser was a green dash, Pong was the 'video game', 2400 baud was really haulin' ass, and they called it Usenet back then.

Just once again trying to help someone who asked for and clearly needs some advice.

Take it or leave it, but don't proclaim what is or isn't just quite yet. If you knew, you wouldn't be here. ;)

Good luck as you proceed.
HeneryH
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:50 pm

Re: Camera's timestamp and BI timestamp don't match and progressively diverge

Post by HeneryH »

Pogo wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 12:23 pm ...
First and foremost, any Reolink advice received in a Blue Iris forum will generally be negative if not downright abusive to anyone daring to even bring the subject to light. .... Not quite that bad here, but one can be crucified elsewhere for bringing up any Reolink related topic. .
How has Reolink worked out for you with BI? Would you recommend the pairing?
Post Reply