MJPEG vs. H.264by John Honovich, IPVM posted on Apr 17, 2009 About John Contact John
Recently, IQinVision releaed an article advocating benefits of MJPEG.
[Update Dec 2010: We conducted extensive testing comparing MJPEG and H.264. Read our Test Results of MJPEG vs H.264.]
While I found the article technically accurate, well written and worth reading, the nature of the application and its economics demand that MJPEG be almost always avoided. Since H.264 is hot right now, this is a popular claim to make. However, a discussion of this can help examine the economics and operational drivers driving this interest.
Jason's central claims are:
1. With moving cameras or images of high activity areas, MPEG4 and H.264 provide little bandwidth savings relative to MJPEG.
2. Proper network design requires factoring in worse case scenarios so you will need to dedicate the same amount of bandwidth whether or not you use MJPEG, MPEG4 or H.264.
3. MJPEG provides higher quality because of no intra-frame compression.
4. Unlike MJPEG, with MPEG-4 vendors deviate from standards, increasing potential integation costs.
My counterpoints are:
1. For most users, cameras usually have low or modest activity, translating into significant savings for MPEG-4 or H.264. Most cameras in the world are fixed. Most cameras have significant periods during the day when there is little or no motion (nights, weekends, etc.) Even within PTZs, PTZs are often left at a home position, or iterate over a series of pre-sets stopping for 5 - 10 seconds each.
2. Many, perhaps most organizations, do not set network bandwidth budgets for worst case scenarios. Sometimes, organizations don't want to pay the money for the extra capacity but sometimes it can't be done due to constraints of reutilizing existing infrastructure (very common in wireless networks). In other words, organizations generally trade-off infrequent pixelization for immediate cost savings. Maybe this is 'objectively' wrong but this is common.
2a. Jason does not discuss storage but storage is a HUGE economic driver in the move away from MJPEG. I have had a number of occasions where my DVR/NVR with a 1TB hard drive was only recording for 13 days. Why? I had forgot we recently integrated just a few megapixel cameras using MJPEG. Let's say we can save 1 Mb/s by switching from MJPEG to MPEG4. Over a two month period, for one camera, that is 650 GBs. It would cost you $300 to $600 to add that much storage for each MJPEG camera.
3. As for quality, the difference in quality is usually close enough that most customers are ok with it, especially for the savings.
4. The issue with deviation from standards is generally a one-time cost/problem that can be amortized by the manufacturer over many different customers. In the larger scheme of things, it's mainly a nuisance.
In sum, then, the economics of reducing network and storage costs are usually very significant budgetary and operational factors that drive purchasing decisions. With megapixel manufacturers starting to announce H.264 support, it will be interesting to see what IQinVision does.
Comment #1 by Jason Spielfogel posted on Apr 20, 2008
Comment #2 by John Honovich posted on Apr 20, 2008
Most Recent Industry Reports
Resolution vs Compression Tested on Nov 24, 2014
They are not the same thing. Unfortunately, too many industry people conflate them. Worse, resolution and compression can silently undermine each other. The Impact Compare the two images below....
Camera DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) Guide on Nov 20, 2014
A significant video problem is night time bandwidth spikes. An IPVM study found 250 - 500% increase in bandwidth from day to night (see: Testing Bandwidth vs Low Light). Digital noise r...
Camera Labor Estimation Standard on Nov 19, 2014
IPVM is proud to release the first ever surveillance camera labor estimation standards. These standards help integrators improve the accuracy and efficiency of their installations, reducing risks ...
Dahua HDCVI 2.0 Tested on Nov 17, 2014
A strong initial reception but can it repeat? Dahua's initial HDCVI analog HD offering, with its super low cost and HD resolution, was extremely well received (see IPVM's HDCVI test results)....
Avigilon Analytic Cameras Tested on Nov 12, 2014
Analytics remains the 'next big thing' But supply of high quality, ease to use analytics remain in short supply. VideoIQ had been the favorite choice of integrators surveyed. But VideoIQ was acqu...
Best & Worst Manufacturer Salespeople on Nov 10, 2014
What manufacturers were rated the worst? Which the best? What do integrators want from their manufacturer salespeople? What offends them the most? New IPVM survey results of 100+ integrators an...
Testing Bandwidth vs Low Light on Nov 07, 2014
Bandwidth and low light can be a bad combination. Despite many assuming / calculating bandwidth as a single 24/7 number, bandwidth can vary dramatically. One of the big drivers of bandwidth chang...
Hikvision Tribrid Recorder Tested on Nov 05, 2014
HD over existing coax, IP and legacy analog cameras, all in a single recorder. A 16 camera 'tribrid' DVR that does all that for less than $400. This is what Hikvision is claiming with its 7200 se...
Axis 4K Tested (P1428E) on Oct 29, 2014
Two years ago, Axis declared the megapixel race over. Now, they are among the first to release a 4K (8.3MP) camera. However, the question is simply: do we really need more pixels? We bought an Ax...