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
$100 True WDR Camera Tested (FLIR CVI) on Jul 31, 2015
True WDR has traditionally been quite expensive. And HD analog has so far been mostly low-end models. Now, FLIR has released a ~$100 1080p CVI camera with true WDR and integrated smart IR. We bo...
First Integrator Face Off Opened on Jul 29, 2015
IPVM is starting a new series. A scenario will be presented and selected integrators can respond with their proposals / designs. Then those responses will be shared with the IPVM communi...
Hospital Video Surveillance Guide on Jul 28, 2015
This 16-page guide explains the key uses, design factors, and players in the Hospital Surveillance market. A global group of 50 integrators and consultants with hospital project ...
Axis Camera Companion VMS Tested on Jul 27, 2015
Axis is focusing more on their own 'end to end solutions'. Camera Companion is Axis' 'VMS killer', which is free and eliminates using traditional VMS software. It jumped off to a great start, then...
Testing Zwipe Fingerprint Card on Jul 23, 2015
By embedding a fingerprint reader into an access control card, Zwipe claims it can increase security without requiring facilities to new / expensive fingerprint readers. In this test, we p...
ADI's Disruptive W Box Tested on Jul 22, 2015
ADI moves hundreds of millions of dollars worth video surveillance equipment each year. And now, they are disrupting the channel, cutting out manufacturers. We bought an IP camera and NVR from AD...
Camera Calculation Presentations Released on Jul 21, 2015
Wow your customers with beautiful presentations of your video surveillance designs. Now you can generate PowerPoint presentations, PDFs, Word Docs and Zip files of your Google Map ...
Smart CODEC Guide on Jul 21, 2015
Smart codecs are a next 'big thing'. With cameras having more and more processing power available, it is enabling them to make 'smarter' decisions about how they compress video. The marketin...
ACTi 10MP IR Camera Tested on Jul 20, 2015
10MP, Integrated IR, Motorized Zoom lens. All for just over $300 promotional pricing. An incredible deal, on paper, from ACTi's "Catch All The Details" marketing campaign We bought an ACTi E617 ...
Ethernet over Coax (EoC) Shootout on Jul 16, 2015
Reusing existing coax for IP cameras can cut installation costs dramatically. However, there are endless numbers of Ethernet over coax adapters available, all with differing price points and f...