Dahua Discontinuing H.264 Only Products

By Brian Karas, Published Dec 08, 2016, 08:40am EST

Dahua has taken a stand for H.265 and is discontinuing its H.264 only products.

We examine the shakeup inside this report.

Discontinued ******

***** ** *********** * (discontinuation) **** ****** **+ products, ********* ********** *** 4MP **** ** ***** website [**** ** ****** available]:

[**** ** ****** *********]

***** ***** *** *** publicly ****** ****, ** have ********* **** ******* that ***** ** ******* this ** **** ** its **** ** *********** these ******** ** *** next *** ******.

***** *** ********* *** not ** *** ***********'* ******* *****, ********* **** **** on ***** ******-****** ******* is * ****** **** even ********* *** *** tried ** **** *******.

H.265/Smart *.***+ ***** ** *** ** ********

******* ** *****'* *** products **** [**** ** longer *********] **** **** the *** ******* **** now ******* *.*** / Smart *.***+ (*****'* ***** CODEC) ** ******** ** H.264. *** ** ********* will **** ******* *.***, among ***** *** ********, such ** ** ******.

Poor ************* **** *****

***** ******** **** **** IPVM **** ******* *********** this **** **** *** been ******* ************, ******* them ****** *** ** react ** ******* ******** to ***** *********.

***** **** **** **** to "***** ** ***** ***’* official *******", ***** ******** no ********* ** ***** changes ** ** **** publication.

New ****** *********

*** ****** **** **** under * *** ****** convention,******** ****, ***** ******* * more *********** ******. **** new ********** ** **** more ******* *** ****** be ****** ***** ******* but ***** ** ********* for ********* ** ******* cross-reference *********** ****** ** the *** ******.

Customer ******

********* **** **** ***** the **** ** ******** and ****** ***** ** cameras *** ****** ** find **** *** ****** they *** ******** **** will **** ** ******** with *** ******, ******* them ** ****** *** process ** ********** *******.

***** *** ***** ** indication ** *** **** the *** ****** **** be *********, *** *********** are **** **** ** get *** ** *** stock *******. **** ****** customers ***** ****** ******** potentially ****** ** ****** stock **, ** ****** models.

New *** ********* ***** *.*** ****

******* ****** ** *********, such ** *** ** channel ***-****** *****-**** ******** [link ** ****** *********] are ***** *.*** ****, with ** ******* ** H.265 *******.

H.265 ******* **********, *** ******* ******

**** ***** *** ********, Dahua ***** * ******* list ** ************* ******** H.265-capable ******* ** ********* (e.g., *********, *******, *******). VMS ******* *** *.*** is ***** *******, *** more *********** ******* ******** demand *** *.*** *** not **** ****.

***** *.*** *** ***** to ** **** ** reduce *********, ** ***** at * **** ** increased ****** ******** ******. Meanwhile, ***** *.*** ****** have ***** ** ******* similar, *** ********* ******, bandwidth *******, ******* ********* updates **** *****, ** the **** *** ********** client *********.

Hikvision ******

** *** ******** ****, Dahua *** *** ****** H.265 ** ***** ******** to *.*** (** **** simply ** ** ***** newer). **** ***** *** some ******** ** ********* to ***** *.*** ***** they **** ******* *** done ******* ** ***** today, ******** ** ******.***+ ************ *** ********* *********** bandwidth / ******* ******* on *** ***.

Dahua *** ** ***** **** *******

**** **** ***** ***** does *** **** * solid ************* ** *** their ******** ****** ********. Product **** ********* **** this *** **** ****** in *****, ***** ********* expect ** **** *** latest ************ *********** *********, even ** ******* ************ are *******. ** *** US *** ******, ********* often ***** ********* **** than *********** ******* ********* and **** ******* **** this **********.

Comments (25)

H.265 licensing is extremely expensive. In some cases orders of magnitude more expensive than H.264. MPEG-LA and HEVC.

Google Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Cisco, Mozilla and others are developing a royalty free alternative (under the name "Alliance for Open Media"). VP9 is where the camera community should be moving to, not H.265.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

H.265 licensing is extremely expensive.

Are you saying this based on historical information, or do you think the newer licensing structure is also extremely expensive?

From our discussion with the CEO of the HEVC Alliance, it seems like the costs to implement H.265 support in cameras and recorders/VMS should not be a massively limiting factor.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

The license is $.80 per device for units shipped into the US and other Region 1 countries, and $.40 for Region 2 countries.

If you owe less than $25,000 in license fees (roughly 30,000 units of hardware or software channels) you are exempt from having to pay the license fee.

This still does not sound "extremely expensive" in the grand scheme of things, though certainly more expensive than free if you are shipping enough units to actually owe fees.

The last major tech discussion I read on VP9 (admittedly several months ago), people were still saying that a full specification had not been publicly released, making it impractical for companies to actually implement VP9 in their products independently now. Has this changed?

H.265 is available for use immediately, as we have seen in cameras and VMS support. It has other limitations, but it is at least something that can be implemented.

In Netflix's test of H.265 vs VP9, they found H.265 to be 20% more efficient. For security users this would mean reduced storage costs for video, which would mitigate some (or all) of the higher license fees incurred from using H.265.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

This still does not sound "extremely expensive" in the grand scheme of things...

Though you still need to add in the MPEG-LA 265 royalties, which are higher than the MPEG-LA 264 royalties.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

This really gets my goat, as they say. We've asked, begged, pleaded with manufacturers like Dahua to use more reputable and preferably Western or Japanese technology companies, we will pay for it! 80 cents? Are you serious? Use the officially licensed technology... Free over 30,000 units? Then there is no reason not to do so other than ulterior motives (China only supports China, and they want to perpetuate China China China everywhere)

HiSilicon? Grain Media? Why not use T.I. or Intel- the marketing value of these names is worth the measly increase in price. Ulterior motives is why. It displays a lack of respect and partnership with Western Companies.

China is constantly replying with things like "it is ok, we think" and then they deny/ignore until you forget or give up. Well we don't think that... and we're the consumer. We're also Westerners that know the western market... which is NOTHING like China, so why wouldn't you value inside information/insight? Ulterior motives is why. If China continues to spread it's own ideas and ways of life instead of collaborating and cooperating and improving then it will ruin everything it touches, because they don't compromise and they don't respect anything but money. Even if they all stayed domestic and continued doing business only in China the whole Earth is at risk because their pollution is carried away by the wind and the oceans.

One last point on the Ulterior Motives angle, why would Tesla cars have a 30% tax? Not because it is "Advanced Technology" as they state, it is to protect Chinese electric car makers. The most recent currency manipulation might not seem important to the average American, but if you do the math it is a deceitful way of taxing American goods coming into their country, and making their products more expensive to us- and what alternative do we actually have? Again, Ulterior Motives.

Americans better wake up and read before they wake up Chinese. This isn't sinophobia or racism, this is economics. We've been engaged in a Financial war for quite some time now. Why the WTO doesn't wake up and act is beyond me.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful: 1
Funny

We've asked, begged, pleaded with manufacturers like Dahua to use more reputable and preferably Western or Japanese technology companies, we will pay for it!

What does this mean? Why would Dahua want to use anyone but themselves?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I mean the components they use, the microprocessors.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Indepdendent testing by Netflix:

VP9 in green.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Native browser support does not exist for h.265 which is a huge problem for camera setup and the future of video.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I'd disagree with that. Most cameras use JPEG in the web interface anyway, even today. To get H.264, you almost always need to use ActiveX or other plugins, with few exceptions. So considering it hasn't stopped anyone from using H.264 cameras, apparently, I would expect the same for 265.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

So you are satisfied with JPEG in the browser for all your streaming video needs? Browser video codec support is transitioning technologies and WebRTC is the future for native browser support for video codecs. If H.265 was going to be supported by WebRTC then I might feel differently.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

No, not all my streaming video needs, but for setup it has worked fine with few exceptions. It would be ideal if 264/265 were properly supported without plugins, but my point is that it has not been a showstopper in surveillance.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

My opinion is in the context of "what's the best technology choice for the future of video surveillance" and not "what are acceptable alternatives." Otherwise, your point is valid.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Then why won't anyone embrace HTML5?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Camera or VMS support for HTML5?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I would prefer HTML5 for IPC web interface and video streaming, eliminate ActiveX completely in all cases.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

WebRTC is based on HTML but unfortunately Dahua went H.265 and can not take advantage of it now.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Dahua went H.265 and can not take advantage of it now.

They are still supporting H.264, so they can work with webRTC browsers for the scenarios where that matters.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

All hikvision and dahua high end nvr use Intel 

question is why the secrecy 

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

This is straight out of the Chinese Business School: Sell a ton of product to their "trusted & valued partners", load them up with tons of old/dead stock and then release the new product, and in the case of Dahua and Hik: sell the new stuff direct to consumer. Shameful.

Also, how long had they been advertising H.265? I think the release has been delayed by a year maybe.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

You state in the article that Hikvision haven't embraced H.265 yet. Well as the attached article from Hikvision Europe shows I think that is about to change.

http://www.hikvisioneurope.com/eu/hik/news/

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Good find. I never believed Hik's BS about h.265, it was an obvious stall tactic.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Is h265 more hype than reality

if it's on anything below a 4 k camera

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,093 reports and 940 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports