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
Getting Started With Your IPVM Membership on Oct 24, 2014
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...
Hikvision HDTVI Cameras Tested on Oct 22, 2014
HD Analog is the most interesting new trend in the industry now, claiming HD quality over legacy coax, with simpler configuration and lower prices than IP. IPVM has tested two of the ent...
Testing Arecont Omni on Oct 20, 2014
The Arecont SurroundVideo Omni is one of the most novel new camera offerings in the past few years. Like their 180 and 360 predecessors, the Omni supports 4 imagers / cameras inside. The major adv...
The Worst HD Quality Camera Ever (Samsung 1280H) on Oct 15, 2014
Samsung, what are you doing? Their new 1280H offering significantly stretches video and is one of the most bizarre offerings we have ever seen. Earlier this year, Samsung trumpeted that 1280H wou...
Winners Losers Fall 2014 on Oct 13, 2014
We are all losers, IPVM included. The historically poor new releases for Essen / ASIS make 2014 the worst year for surveillance innovation in, at least, a decade. (See our in depth manufacturer re...
Smart IR Panoramic Camera Tested on Oct 10, 2014
Panoramic cameras are overwhelmingly quite bad in low light. Now, manufacturers are starting to add IR to them. We tested the Hikvision panoramic IR earlier this year. Now, Vivotek has released t...
Testing Speco IP Intensifier on Oct 06, 2014
Chances are you have seen Speco's promotion of its Intensifier HD IP line, with ads online and in trade mags claiming color images down to an incredible 0.0005 lx. Speco funded a vacation f...
Testing IP Camera Latency on Sep 26, 2014
How much does latency impact IP cameras? We tested a number of combinations, like so: In this report, we break down: Average latency metrics in our test Key drivers of latency Variations i...
Testing Analog HD on Sep 24, 2014
This is where the innovation is at. During Essen and days before ASIS, IPVM is leading with a test of an analog (HD) camera, reflecting both how bad the big names are doing and the key trend we se...
Fall 2014 New Products Directory on Sep 23, 2014
New releases are weak this year, and unfortunately, the trend does not appear to be changing this fall. Here is a list of new products released since April, with links to IPVM's review or the...