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
WDR Camera Shootout 2015 on May 04, 2015
This is the most comprehensive Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) IP camera shootout ever. We tested 10 of the latest generation multiple-exposure true WDR cameras, including: Arecont Vision AV3116DNv1 ...
Uniview Chinese Camera Tested on Apr 28, 2015
The company claims $263 million in 2013 revenue and to be the third largest Chinese surveillance manufacturer (after Hikvision and Dahua). Despite being owned by American investment firm Bain Capi...
Google Maps Camera Calculator Released on Apr 27, 2015
The new IPVM Google Maps Camera Calculator empowers surveillance professionals to plan and design systems like never before. Whatever project you are working on, enter the address and start mappin...
Gain / AGC for Video Surveillance Guide on Apr 23, 2015
Gain control is a critical, though often overlooked, factor in low light surveillance video. It is generally only noticed when the negative side effective of aggressive gain levels are seen, namely...
Testing Honeywell HQA HD-CVI on Apr 22, 2015
HD analog support continues to expand, with Honeywell now releasing its own HD-CVI offering, awkwardly named "High Quality Analog" (HQA), offering up to 1080p video via analog. The big appeal is g...
Testing Axis Zipstream on Apr 13, 2015
Has Axis found its breakthrough differentiator? Can they demand a premium for this? Axis claims Zipstream can "lower bandwidth and storage requirements by an average 50% or more." We upgrade...
New Products Spring 2015 on Apr 12, 2015
After very poor new releases in 2014 (see Spring 2014 and Fall 2014 directories), 2015 is already much better. Here are new products being announced in 2015: Avigilon First to Demo 7K Cameras ...
FLIR FX Tested on Apr 08, 2015
FLIR is going after the home / consumer surveillance market with their FLIR FX. A few of the notable competitive features offered: Video analytics for search (RapidRecap) Built-in Battery Buil...
IP Network Setup Guide for Surveillance on Apr 06, 2015
In this guide, we teach the fundamentals of setting up an IP video surveillance network, taking factory default cameras through to a fully configured and ready to run network. We explain these topi...
Testing Messoa 3MP LPC Camera on Apr 02, 2015
License plate recognition has historically required specialized cameras with limited general surveillance use. Messoa is aiming to change that with the LPR606, a higher resolution 3MP claiming sce...