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
Super Low Cost Chinese Camera Shootout on Feb 25, 2015
The 'Chinese' are the industry's #1 threat (or opportunity depending on one's perspective). IPVM has extensively covered the rise of Dahua and Hivkision (see test results). But those tw...
Warning: Case Studies Can Get You Sued on Feb 24, 2015
What do 24 Hour Fitness, Barnes and Nobles and multiple hospitals have in common? They have all been sued in the past few months, with their manufacturer case studies used as evidence. They...
Genetec AutoVu LPR Camera Tested on Feb 23, 2015
License plate video is one of the most requested elements of video surveillance. IPVM has done many tests on license plate cameras, including the: License Plate Capture Shootout Low Cost Licen...
Shootout: 4K vs PTZ Cameras on Feb 19, 2015
Resolutions continue upwards, with 4K cameras hitting the street. Meanwhile, PTZ usage continues its downward trend, with fewer and fewer integrators choosing them. The question is: how does this ...
Testing FLIR IR PTZ on Feb 17, 2015
FLIR's integrated IR PTZ, the DNZ30TL2R claims a whopping 150m (~500') IR range and HD resolution. Distances like these have historically been possible only with expensive high-end positioning syst...
Canon to Buy Axis, Will Own Axis and Milestone on Feb 10, 2015
This is the biggest deal in video surveillance ever. Just 8 months after buying Milestone, Canon is set to buy Axis. Canon has offered $2.8 billion USD for Axis, a ~50% premium over Axis stock pr...
BestMatch Camera Software Released on Feb 09, 2015
Our new camera comparison algorithm, BestMatch, enables you to find the best camera for your needs at up to 70% lower price. Watch this quick 2 minute video that shows how you will benefit from th...
Hikvision HDTVI Long Distance Problem Tested on Feb 05, 2015
Hikvision's HDTVI cameras performed poorly over low quality or long coax and UTP cables in our original tests. This was a major issue as a key selling point of analog HD technol...
Network Monitoring / SNMP for Video Surveillance Guide on Feb 02, 2015
Surveillance systems typically rely on the the VMS to report issues, but this most often just means knowing a camera is "down" with no warning or detailed information. Network monitoring syst...
Getting Started With Your IPVM Membership on Feb 01, 2015
Here's how to get started and get the most out of your IPVM membership. Getting Started Video Presentation You can watch the 20 minute video immediately below or scan through the whole post for i...