Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station

Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station

14 Reply
Re:Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station
Friday

  @CUNEYT 

Hi,
Your test can't prove that the ONVIF delay is occurring in the camera. Our senior engineer has already replied to you via email, and we suggest you follow their guidance for further troubleshooting and analysis.


Furthermore, please note that all email communications between you and the support team are confidential; it's not recommended to share the email content in the community.


Best Regards

  0  
  0  
#12
Options
Re:Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station
Friday

  @Solla-topee 

 

Noted. I am currently conducting a fresh series of synchronized tests based on the Senior Engineer's latest guidance. I will provide the updated technical logs and timestamp analysis directly to the support team for further investigation. I'll update the community on the resolution status in due course.

  0  
  0  
#13
Options
Re:Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station
Friday

  @CUNEYT Hi, thank you for your cooperation and understanding~

  0  
  0  
#14
Options
Re:Tapo C225 and Synology Surveillance Station
Friday

Thank you very much.

I have already submitted the synchronized timestamp analysis to the Senior Engineer. The logs confirm a staggering 18 to 19-second delay between the camera's internal AI (Person Detection) and its ONVIF 'Motion' broadcast.

To clarify for the community: while the visual gap in the recordings appears to be 11 seconds, this is only because my Synology NVR is smart enough to use a 5-second pre-recording buffer. Without this NVR feature, the gap in the footage would be a full 18-19 seconds.

Since the detection is set to 'By Camera', this proves the latency is 100% within the C225's firmware event prioritization. The camera knows there is a person, sends a cloud alert instantly, but 'forgets' to tell the NVR via ONVIF for nearly 20 seconds. I am now waiting for a technical explanation from the engineering team regarding this local protocol neglect.

Best regards.

  0  
  0  
#15
Options