additionally to the scheduling option for motion alertes i would need to be able to disable these motion-alerts when specific Wifi devices are connected to the Unifi-APs. the best would be an option with which you could combine a schedule and the connection of a specific device to a specific AP in the area. but for regular homes it would be sufficient to be able to recognize when the owners are at home.
please let me know what you think ?
I've been with Unifi Video for several years now. A great product. now I switch to Unifi Protect.
The NVR should arrive the next days
But what I wish for is a native support to Apple HomeKit, I know there is a HomeBridge plugin but it's not the same.
Dear Ubiquiti Team, how would it be to implement this?
I think this would have a very positive effect on the sales figures. The cameras are actually great the software too, but an integration with HomeKit would be even better.
Post from: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Protect/Native-Apple-HomeKit-integration/m-p/2552425#M1475
I would suggest geofencing to drive notification activity. When you've arrived at your monitored location, app geofence status would cause notifications to snooze as long as you stay at your location. This would have to be on a notification by notification basis. (e.g. Would want to pause internal camera notifications while at home, but allow driveway or front door notifications during this time. All other times, both indoor and outdoor notifications would be active.)
In the Events section where recordings are saved, is it possbile to have on the recording what the peak motion and average was for the event. Along with what Zone Name triggered the event.
When we are fine tuning the sensitivity this would be very useful looking at previous events and finding that number to be under.
Now that independent IR and cut filter control is coming, it opens up a market for off-axis illuminators. I propose at least two models. One utilizing 802.3af passthrough so that it can be placed in-line on a single existing cable, the other, a higher powered unit to cover a larger area.
It would be nice if there was a third model that uses 802.3af/at in and provides 24V passive out for the legacy cams that are 24V passive only.
I'm using UniFi Protect on a Cloud Key Gen 2 Plus and would like to switch recording on/off for specific cameras. Right now it's on full time. It would be nice if I could turn it on/off manually or by schedule. Just like wiith UniFi Video.
Since unifi video is going into maintenance mode, we will need protect at some point. Many of us perfer the Flexibility of a standalone software that we can install on our own hardware. Please consider offer the protect as a stand-alone software. Since business needs to make money the, new software can be offer as a one time per camera licensing fee.
Currently, autobackups for Protect are only stored at /etc/unifi-protect/backups. Please modify the autobackup nightly script to additionally copy these backups to /data/unifi-protect/backups.
This is a simple feature that exists for Unifi Network Controller, but is missing from Unifi Protect.
I would like to see an API carried over from Unifi-Video. This is heavily utilized for home-automation integrations or other custom add on abilities. This can also be used to pull clips or other items for long term storage if needed. API should really be there on GA, but I have a feeling its not there now in case it needs to change as protect is still fairly immature of a product in my opinion.
Add a feature so that the Protect controller could send images via a choosen protocol, ssh/https/sftp/whatever at selected intervals.
Then the need of giving passwords etc to other devices would not be needed and all would be controlled from the controller and no port forwards or other solutions of letting other devices in would be needed.
There has been much, let's go with "indigestion", amongst Unifi Video / UniFi Protect users surrounding the decision (at least for now) to limit UniFi Protect to Ubiquiti Hardware NVRs (currently the Cloud Key Gen2 Plus, but purportedly expanding to include the Unifi Applicaiton Server / UAS-XG and potentially some yet-unannounced "mid-range" systems at some point in the future).
Aside from the philosophical dislike of having a "walled garden" in terms of NVR hardware support and the (somewhat also philosophical) "virtualization being preferable to a dedicated hardware appliance" stance, one of the major conerns voiced by the community is the lack of support for a single site having more than 20 cams being managed as a single site, something that was easily done with Unifi Video and a custom built NVR solution.
The concerns seems to predominantly stem from two major camps in the community power users (with systems that may have slightly more than 20 cams) and integrators (often supporting installations for businesses who need more - at times, much more - than 20 cams to cover their locations). Aside from having multiple-but-independent sites, managed seperately, there isn't really a supported option with UniFi Protect to handle this use-case.
The currently recommended option is to stick with UniFi Video, which is still available as a download for a "Roll Your Own" custom built NVR solution (and/or simply buying the old NVR with UniFi Video running under the hood).
This presents a number of concerns for power users and integrators alike:
- For the integrator, their customers may not be receptive to the idea of installing the "legacy" NVR solution for a brand new system. For many businesses installing a survellience system is a significant investment and it's reasonable to expect them to ask for the newest technology available for a system they will expect to last many years. Likeise, they may also have concerns about long-term support if Ubiquiti is clearling moving in a fundamentally differant direction with Protect and may not be comfortable installing a system that has been effecitvely replaced by Protect.
For the power user, there may be certain feature sets they would like to have access to which leads to the concern about how that would ever materialize in UniFi Video with the emphasis being on Protect going forward. They may also, by their nature as power users, be turned off by the idea of not being on the bleeding edge (which is also a concern, from a market adoption propspective, for Ubiquiti).
Finally, there is the concern that both groups may share that there are areas of UniFi Video (i.e., Timeline) that simply don't work as expected and now appear to be on track to "never be resolved". Telling users, of any flavor, to stick with software that has areas that simply don't work as intended with no expectation they will ever be resolved will undoubtably leave a sour tast in their mouths.
I would like to propose the idea of allowing multiple CloudKey Gen 2 Plus NVRs (and, perhaps any future supported NVRs), running Protect, to operate in either their current mode (which I'll refer to as "stand alone") as well as a new "Linked Mode", the later of which allowing muiltiple NVRs to co-exist in a single site, sharing a things such as a unified configuration profile, camera live view, and search functionality over recordings (and, perhaps any other things that might make sense).
When provisoning new cameras the user could be presented with a NVR in the linked pool to attach it to and once attached it would be "homed" to that NVR unless otherwise relocated. The Web UI would show the camera as it does today with an additional column to indicate the NVR it's attached to. The UI would show all cameras across all linked NVRs including a composet live view with all available sources. (Note: This sort of a design might build a foundation for future ideas such as a NVR load balancing capability, NVR hot sparing, mirroring, etc - but for now let's keep it focuses on simply control and live view in the Web UI).
Speaking of the Web UI, it seems to me that it's really the Web UI that is the lynchpin to this all being realistic, as really all it would be is an optical illusion for the end user.
What I mean by optical illusion is that, under the hood, I would expect it to still just be multiple NVRs, more or less operating as they do now. The key would be for the Web UI to present those multiple independent NVRs in a single view such that these independent NVRs "appear" to be operating as one.
Put another way, the individual camera live views, ability to search recordings, etc, would simply be "colated" into a one control / view pane - as opposed to having to login to each seperately and juggle between multiple tabs, as you would today.
To further emphasize why I think it's important that each NVR is self sufficient is that this design would support the notion of independent failure domains amoungst the NVRs.
From an architecture prospective, one major benefit of a system comprised of 5x NVRs, all running completely on their own, is that it prevents you from having a single monolithic NVR that, if it catastrophically failed for whatever reason (i.e., motherboard failure, botched software upgrade, dead drive, etc), would take down the entire survillence system in one fell swoop. In short, while losing any cams due to an NVR failure is never good, I think most would agree that losing 20 cams is preferable to losing 100 cams.
This is analagous to how within an Enterprise SAN you would expect to find multiple independent RAID groups forming your usable storage pool, as opposed to one single array with 1000 disks. The theory being you create multiple failure domains so a failure in a single domain doesn't affect the entire system as a whole.
Have a small site? Great, buy a single unit. Nothing changes. Run in stand alone mode, and you're good to go.
Need to cover a large site? Need to have 80, 100, 300 cameras? Buy one NVR per 20 cams you plan to install. Enable linked mode manage the fleet of NVRs and view cams in a single view. Done!
If you could link units together, like building blocks, and have multiple NVRs under each site that would be set to work together, it seems to me that could be really compelling in terms of the marketability of the Protect platform which has it's limits today. It would also, I shuold hope, do a lot to soften the nerves of those who feel like Ubiquiti has left their business model entirely up a creek without a paddle as it pertains to the current 20 cam limit.
While It certainly would take some effort to complete, it addresses the scalability concern without having to focus as much on hardware answers (I'm sll for more NVR options, but I think this has it's own merit, irrespective of the other hardware options).
Finally, in terms of cost, the "I want to roll my own hardware, no matter what!" / virtues of virualization arguments notwithstanding, I would assume that anyone building a 100 cam system is going to likely be spending *at least* $1000 on the NVR hardware (likely quite a bit more), so it would be fairly priced in my view to just say "100 cam system? Sure, buy 5x CK G2+'s, link them together, and your all set". a 100 cam NVR solution for $1000 + cams? Now that's what I'd call Disrptive Pricing (see what I did there?).
Thanks for the consideration!
First I have to say that I am very disappointed with the Protect software, its missing many basic features that one expects to be standard for a surveillance system.
- Auto delete of recordings, I need this function. In Norway we have strict rules for storing off recordings and we are not alllowed to store more then 7 days (90 days for bank/post office)
- Timelaps recording, we need to be able to turn this on/off to save harddrive space.
- Motion recordings, need to be able to set the time of recording time post and pre trigger.
- Push and email alerts, we need to time schedule this. can't use this function now becurse we get to many allerts.
Would love to see Facial Recognition added to Protect. I understand that can be quite resource intensive, but it could be a feature you could turn on or off, and if turned on the CKG2 could be certified for a smaller number of cameras, say 10.
Also, if full-blown facial recognition is a step too far at the very least I would expect to see facial identification so it can at least distinguish between people and objects, for example as Aviglion does.
Can ubnt enable/add the recording option that unifi video has which allows the user to choose either 24/7 or on motion recording.
Since Protect is only available with unifi cloud key gen2 plus and doesn't give the user much of an option. The hard drive capacity and reliability (no 2.5" nvr or nas hdd available) options are very minimal.
- bhenderso on: Snooze Alerts and Automatically turn back on
- astrobboy on: Disable motion alerts when specific devices are connected to Unifi-WiFi
- cory_booth on: Amazon Alexa support on Echo Show
- ubnt-taka on: Push Notifications On Schedule
- dom2114 on: Report Motion Sensitivity
- Cloudenius on: User/Group Based Microphone Permission
- LLigetfa on: Off-axis IR Illuminators
- magnusmodig on: Request to send alert video files by email
- esoare on: Schedule Motion detection in Protect
- mikesg on: Allow intelligent camera numbering
- Ability to change alerts schedule from Protect App
- Protect App Alerts: when selecting 'all cameras', allow the ability to deselect individual cameras
- Protect map similar to mapping feature in Unifi SDN Controller
- Snooze Alerts and Automatically turn back on
- Disable motion alerts when specific devices are connected to Unifi-WiFi
- Digital Input and Output Device for Unifi Protect
- Scheduled recording.
- Amazon Alexa support on Echo Show
- Push Notifications On Schedule
- NAS App