The problem of practically-invisible timestamp “watermarks” remains just as ridiculously bad now as when I brought it up five months ago. There really is no excuse for this obvious flaw not to be addressed.
Eufy: If you can’t, or won’t, implement a contrasting outline for visibility of timestamp characters, then PLEASE address this issue in one or more of the following alternative ways:
When compositing the timestamp into each frame, first darken by 50% the entire rectangular area that’s just big enough to entirely enclose the timestamp plus a few pixels of edge padding. This will assure that every white timestamp character will be surrounded by an immediate background that is no lighter than 50% gray, which is sufficient for visibility. Technically, assuming black=0/white=1, this can be done extremely easily and fast by rotating the bits of each RGB value of each affected background pixel one place to the right (equivalent to dividing by 2). [If white=0 and black=1, then you’d rotate one bit to the left instead (equivalent to multiplying by 2).]
Enable users to specify where in the frame the timestamp appears. At minimum, there should be the two options of upper-right (as now) and lower-right; also adding options for upper-left and lower-left would be even better.
Enable users to specify the color with which timestamps are “painted”, offering alternatives to white. I would suggest the other seven basic colors: black, red, green, blue, yellow (=R+G), magenta (=R+B), and cyan (=G+B).
Of all the tasks you could assign to your software developers, I submit that this proposal offers by far the highest ratio of customer benefit to development resources required… in that it would help us EufyCam users a lot, and yet it should be relatively quick and easy to implement.