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
HD Analog Four Way Cameras Tested on Aug 28, 2015
One camera that delivers AHD, HDCVI, HDTVI and 960H, all for as little as $15 a camera. Both on price and claimed support, that is pretty outstanding. And we are hearing from people all over the w...
The Prox Reader Shootout on Aug 27, 2015
In this report, we put eight readers of the popular 125 kHz contactless format head to head and see which one rises to the top. Over a third of integrators call 125 kHz 'favorite', and tens of t...
Axis WDR Zipstream Low-Cost M1125 Tested on Aug 26, 2015
Axis has been busy promoting speciality devices like IP horns and video intercoms. However, they have quietly released a new series of low-cost HD cameras with true WDR and Zipstream support, spec...
IPVM Launches Live Chat Room on Aug 24, 2015
Now you can get help or talk with colleagues any time with IPVM's new Live Chat. Chat is as old as AOL chat rooms and as hot as mega-startup Slack. Benefits of Chatting Ask a question anytime,...
SMB Market Video Surveillance Guide on Aug 20, 2015
This 13-page guide explains the key uses, design factors, and players in the small-medium business surveillance market. A global group of 90 integrators responded, each offering insigh...
The $100 Intrusion System Korner Tested on Aug 18, 2015
Multi-year contracts at $30 per month are the norm. Now a startup is offering an intrusion system for $59 up front and just ~$3 monthly. The company, Korner, has billed itself as the "Home S...
Panasonic 4K / 12MP Camera Tested on Aug 17, 2015
We bought the new Panasonic 4K / 12MP WV-SFV781L dome camera and tested it against the: Axis P1428E Bosch NBN-80122 Dahua IPC-HFW4800E In this in-depth report, we tested: ...
Testing Petzi, The Pet Cam That Shoots Treats on Aug 14, 2015
Do you love dogs? Do you love the Internet of Things? Then we have a product for you. Half camera, half remote-controlled pet treat dispenser, Petzi lets you shoot treats at your dog. That'...
Genetec Cloud Tested on Aug 12, 2015
Not since Axis public and prolonged agony with AVHS, has a major manufacturer bet as heavily as Genetec is now doing on the cloud. Genetec started with Stratocast, which took a similar small ...
Samsung AHD Tested on Aug 11, 2015
Not long ago, an individual MP camera was commonly $300 and a DVR was commonly $300. Now, Samsung is offering (4) MP cameras plus a DVR for ~$330 all-in. We bought the Samsung SDH-...