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
Airport Video Surveillance Guide on Jun 30, 2015
This 20-page guide explains the key uses, design factors, and players in the Airport Surveillance market. A global group of 40 integrators and consultants with airport project experience respond...
New Google Nest Cam Tested on Jun 29, 2015
The most important advance for the new Google Nest Cam is video analytics. Though this has not been the focus in the mainstream press, IPVM testing shows that their video analytic advances are sig...
Super Low Light HD Lens Tested on Jun 26, 2015
A smaller F-number can make a big difference in how much light reaches an imager. For example, the difference even between a f/1.2 and f/1.0, which may seem very close, can be significant, as show...
China and Taiwan Manufacturer Financials on Jun 24, 2015
China is the #1 threat to video surveillance providers around the world but how well are Chinese and Taiwan surveillance manufacturers actually doing? This report breaks down the financial perform...
iControl Piper Camera Test on Jun 24, 2015
iControl has raised over $100 million in VC funding to transform the home security market. Last year, they acquired Piper, a camera / home automation startup. iControl now faces off against...
Avigilon Access Control Tested on Jun 22, 2015
Avigilon aims to deliver an end-to-end solution of video surveillance and access control. But how good is their access control? In 2013, Avigilon bought RedCloud for $17 million. However, RedCloud...
The $500 FLIR Thermal Camera Tested on Jun 19, 2015
$5,000 thermal cameras were super 'cheap' not too long ago. Then $2,000 thermal cameras shocked people in 2012. Now, we have thermals cameras under $500, coming from the biggest name in the therm...
The $40 Million Funded Startup Canary Tested on Jun 17, 2015
This startup, Canary, has raised $40 million total since 2014. With Google buying Dropcam for $555 million, investors see big opportunity in security / video startups. Canary now has a sizeable w...
Favorite SMB Video Surveillance Manufacturers on Jun 15, 2015
Most video surveillance manufacturers are fighting to expand their sales to the small to medium size business market. With the high-end saturated from early IP camera adopters, premium brands like...
Online Surveillance Sales Trends 2015 on Jun 11, 2015
IPVM has uncovered the key trends and top options being offered across some of the most well known and commonly used online retailers. Is SD analog still king? Has IP 'won'? Is HD Analog making he...