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
Testing Scallop Panoramic Cameras on Dec 19, 2014
For years, Arecont Vision's SurroundVideo line has been practically the only multi-imager option, but with their poor reputation, multi-imager cameras are still not widely used. Scallop Imaging ai...
Avigilon Acquires All ObjectVideo Patents on Dec 18, 2014
Wow. You thought Object Video played hardball suing large manufacturers like Bosch, Samsung, Sony, Pelco, etc. Now, Avigilon has acquired all of OV's patents for $80.3 million, and all of th...
Best & Worst Places to Buy Surveillance on Dec 17, 2014
Stores, distributors, manufacturers, the Internet, Chinese spam emails? Today, there are more options to buy surveillance than ever. But what are the best and worst places to buy? IPVM surveyed ...
2015 IP Camera Book on Dec 15, 2014
This is the best, most comprehensive IP camera training in the world, based on our unprecedented testing. Now, all IPVM PRO Members can get it in a single 300+ page ebook, downloadable inside. T...
Tested: Quality Worse Dome Bubble On? on Dec 11, 2014
Often, industry professionals will warn about three problems with using domes: The dome bubble degrades image quality The degradation is worse with megapixel cameras The degradation is worse t...
Hikvision HDTVI VS Dahua HDCVI on Dec 10, 2014
With super low cost and full HD video, Analog HD has the most potential to disrupt the surveillance market of any new technology in years. With 1080p HD IR cameras, routinely being priced at ~$100...
Testing Day vs Night With IR on Dec 09, 2014
IR illumination helps. When it gets dark, especially real dark, with no nearby artifical lighting, pretty much every surveillance camera (even 'super' ones) are going to deliver signific...
Major Moves - Security Manufacturer 2014 on Dec 08, 2014
This guide summarizes the biggest moves of security manufacturers in 2014, concentrating on acquisitions, fund raising, significant stock price shifts and major new product lines introduced. ...
HD Analog DVRs With VMS Software Tested on Dec 05, 2014
New HD analog offerings from Dahua and Hikvision have proven to deliver HD video at radically lower prices (see IPVM test results - Dahua HDCVI 1.0, Dahua HDCVI 2.0, Hikvision HDTVI). However...
Manufacturer Sales Pitches Revealed on Dec 02, 2014
IPVM sent a 'secret shopper' to ISC East 2014 to talk to manufacturer sales reps at their booths. We wanted to understand and contrast how they pitched to a prototypical end user. Would they fol...