Milestone Vs Avigilon - Remote Viewing Bandwidth Usage
Is there any hard data or testing to determing which VMS offers the best performance and bandwidth savings on remote viewing using each VMS's thick client?
Which version of Milestone are you planning to use?
How much bandwidth do you have remotely? 56Kb/s? 500Kb/s? 5Mb/s?
The current connection can only reach about 750k. We are currently using Milestone Professional 8 but the client is interested in HDSM and if it would benefit them.
Currently we set up 'Off Site' views that mirror his onsite views but are configured in the smart client to have medium or low image quality settings. This works well but really does put a big load on the server. It also prevents the end user from watching uncompressed video off site.
I read the test you referenced as well as most of the threads. I am still unsure if HDSM will be of any benefit. Also, is it true that HDSM only works on Avigilon cameras?
Well, it depends on which version of HDSM.
Version 1 is JPEG2000 only, which would seem to be crazy on other grounds (storage, buying such discontinued cameras, etc.).
Avigilon Version 2 is H.264 multistreaming which should help (using the secondary lower stream). If I recall correctly Milestone Pro / Enterprise editions) do not support multistreaming, so that's definitely a factor.
HDSM Version 1 (current version) supports
All Avigilon's h.264 and JPEG2000 cameras
ONVIF cameras
H.264 and JPEG2000 cameras are handled completely different (SVC vs H.264), so it's quite misleading to say its the same version.
HDSM V2 is not even released yet and as of right now is for the new H4 Pro cameras.
Current Version HDSM 1.0 works with ALL Avigilon H.264 and JPEG2000 cameras plus ONVIF cameras
Alex, no more on this. My point is simple - HDSM version "1.0" is made up of 2 radically distinct approaches - JPEG2000 and H.264 multistreaming. Anyone choosing HDSM "1.0" needs to understand the differences in these. Undisclosed is evidently only looking at H.264 so it is not a practical issue. But munging JPEG2000 and H.264 multistreaming in a single 'technology', single 'version' is quite misleading.
Sorry not trying to argue but this misleading the way you worded it.
"Well, it depends on which version of HDSM.
Version 1 is JPEG2000 only, which would seem to be crazy on other grounds (storage, buying such discontinued cameras, etc.).
Avigilon Version 2 is H.264 multistreaming which should help (using the secondary lower stream). If I recall correctly Milestone Pro / Enterprise editions) do not support multistreaming, so that's definitely a factor."
HDSM V1 Current Version
JPEG2000 = SVC
H.264 = Multible Streams
ONVIF = Multible Streams
All done automaticly depending on avaible bandwidth, screen resolution, and/or matrix view.
HDSM V2 is not released yet.
H.264 and JPEG2000 cameras are handled completely different (SVC vs H.264)..
John, do you mind clarifying what is your intended association above, i.e., does the 'H.264' in the first part go with the 'SVC' in the second? And in either case has AV actually implemented SVC? Or are you using the term SVC loosely, meaning a SVC-like mechanism? No hard feelings if you need to delete per your edict below, which I just saw.
JPEG2000 is a scalable video, intra frame only, codec. So, yes, Avigilon has implemented SVC though only via JPEG2000.
H.264 is NOT a scalable video codec, but supports intra AND inter frame compression. For Avigilon, like everyone else in surveillance, 'scaling' the resolution of H.264 requires multiple streams or transcoding.
Since they implemented SVC in J2000, why does no one really think that the new HDSM is just their implementation of H.264 SVC? Have they, or their minions denied this outright? Pethaps the only reason that AV has drug its feet so long on deprecating J2000 is that they needed to have the H.264 SVC functionality in place first.
NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Is Avigilon Implementing H.264 SVC?
The latest version of X-Protect Pro does do multistreaming. It still does limit the end user to a low res stream that can not be digitally zoomed. I guess in that respect Avigilon is better. Well that is if I understand it correctly. If Milestone is sending a 320x240 stream in a tiled view of multiple cameras, is Avigilon sending the same when viewing a tiled view?
Yes, the standard practice is to send the low res streams when multiple videos are displayed (2 x 2, 3 x 3, etc.).
btw, the Milestone Jan 2014 comparison chart indicates that multi live streaming is only available for Corporate (chart, page 6). There is an option for other versions for "Client video stream down sampling (resolution and FPS)"
I hate to sound biased, but can't we all find issues or claims of the opposing vendors claims and cry foul or claim a marketing statement is "Misleading". Last I knew "XProtect" is simply a registered trademark of Milestone and has no technical bearing of the technology and protocols for which they are claiming. I'm not bashing, just saying if something works, call it whatever the marketing team decides. These forums are supposed to be educational, and informative and the undertones are annoying.
So for the private post....
NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Is It Misleading For Milestone To Call Their VMS 'Xprotect'?
Newest Discussions
| Discussion | Posts | Latest |
|---|---|---|
|
Started by
Undisclosed Integrator #1
|
57
|
about 1 hour by Sean Patton |
|
Started by
Brian Gilbert
|
1
|
less than a minute by Brian Gilbert |
|
Started by
John Bazyk
|
9
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Manufacturer #3 |
|
Started by
John Poole
|
12
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed #2 |
|
Started by
Lee Zanter
|
1
|
less than a minute by Lee Zanter |