Blue Iris

spammenotinoz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:47 pm I am actually very happy with BI.
I have 3 feature requests
a) H.265 Intel CPU Hardware Decoding
b) Motion Detection to operate on sub-streams (sure you can manually set this up to then trigger recording on the HD channels, but there is a bug in the triggers that stop recording despite continual movement)
Sub-streams would also be good for remote viewing.
Background to this is, it takes very little resources to record the 4k streams, but when you activate motion detection against these and have a few cams, you need a lot more grunt.
Motion detection against the sub-streams uses sfa resources. Prior to v5, I had motion detection on sub-streams, triggering groups, but as per above the triggers stop, even if there is repeated movement.
c) A sync option. BI5 introduced the "sync with cam" and "sync with profile", however they don't refresh after changes. ie: If I make a change to the CAM A, all the other profiles which are set to "sync" don't get the update until I go in and load them, view and then save. Need to do this for the first profile on every cam, then it seems to take. So something like "refresh" \ "sync" \ "refresh" would be good.

randrew1996 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:27 pm First Off,
BI is the best bang for your buck for surveillance software. Great stuff guys. The below is just a golden dream feature request:

We are using BI in a corporate environment (and have been customers > 5 yrs, now) and have bought multiple licenses. I consider BI to have been an excellent implementation for us.

I had read about the remote management features added in version 5 and got really excited, (though when I installed, it turned out they were a little different than I was thinking).

What would be really handy for multi-server outfits, is for some way to seamlessly present a unified security system to our users. We currently have two servers and will need to add a third soon (because of high definition camera processing demands, not because of the 64 camera limit). With this, we allow access to various cameras to several users. So, we keep basically the same user accounts on each system (and try to keep them synced) and split up the cameras by some kind of logic (whether it's to balance camera load or try to keep it so most users only need access to one server, etc...), and instruct our users to go to whichever camera server (through web browser) they need for whichever camera they happen to be looking at. It makes the management a little difficult trying to keep everything the balanced between the systems, and since permissions are handled through groups, we have to keep all group information synced. It would be fantastic if there were some way for users (through the web interface) to be able to access more than one server (granted, all they really have to do is bookmark both ip addresses, but for anyone who's ever worked in corporate IT, you'd realize that is a big ask). Here were my thoughts (from easiest to most complete):
1. You just define link to the other BI servers (maybe through the remote management screen). Then, through the web UI, the user can try to 'switch' to the other server, and the system will try the same user login against that system. (Basically, this would be two systems still separated, but the web interface would present to the user they were together. You'd still have the issue of syncing all user accounts, camera groups, etc (if you're the admin), but it would at least present as one single security system.
2. Or, Going for the Gold here. If one server could be defined as the 'master' (which would host the database and webserver), and other installations could be camera processing slaves.

Anyway, really love the software. We had used Zoneminder before, but had to switch because our HR department couldn't figure out the interface (they liked the BI one much better), but as an admin, I have still longed for the master/slave features that zoneminder had.

Food for thought