H.264 High vs Main vs Baseline Tested

By: Derek Ward, Published on Jun 27, 2014

In surveillance, H.264 is often considered a single 'thing' but there are many different sets of capabilities, called profiles, to choose from.

The most well known of these are:

  • Baseline
  • Main
  • High

This chart shows the theoretical tradeoffs amongst them:

Basically, as you move 'up' from baseline to main to high, the theory is that you get the same quality for less bandwidth. Some vendors even claim that high profile reduces bandwidth by up to 50% compared to baseline profile.

In the beginning of H.264 IP cameras, baseline profile was the only option. However, over the past few years, more and more manufacturers have added in main and even high profile support.

In this report, we share our test findings comparing the bandwidth consumption of 4 IP cameras that support all 3 of these profiles to see what the savings, if any, really are:

  • Dahua IPC-HF3101
  • Hikvision DC-2CD864FWD-E
  • Samsung SNB-5004
  • Sony SNC-VB600
  • Here are our key findings from this test:

    • Manufacturer implementation varied significantly, with some cameras not decreasing at all from Baseline to Main but dropping significantly when changed to High profile, while others actually increased when moving up profiles. 
    • Differences between main and high profile in low motion scenes varied widely from a decrease of about 50% to an increase of about 30%.
    • In a high motion low light scene, switching from main to high profile resulted in differences which varied from reductions of 25% to increases of 25%.
    • Differences when switching from baseline to main profile were typically small, less than 10 percent.
    • CPU usage was roughly similar regardless of which H.264 profile was used.
    • Observed latency was roughly the same regardless of profile.
    • Selection of high, main, and baseline profiles varies between cameras, often with different names used to describe the same setting. 


    While common knowledge states that bandwidth decreases across the board as H.264 moves from baseline to main to high profile, unfortunately, this is simply not true. Users seeking to reduce bandwidth should test their camera in place with multiple profiles to determine which is best for their application, as manufacturer implementation and savings vary widely. Switching to high profile in some cameras may increase bitrate, i.e., make things worse.

    Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News
    Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News

    Manufacturer Support

    Switching H.264 profiles is not supported by all manufacturers, with some defaulting to only one profile (typically baseline or main). Others support high profile in upper tier cameras, but not others. For example, Axis only supports high profile in cameras using their ARTPEC-5 chip, while others support only baseline and main. 

    Finding out exactly what profile is used may be tricky. A few manufacturers list it in the camera user manual or spec sheets, such as this example from the Axis P series domes:

    However, if it is not listed, a stream analyzer such as AVInaptic must be used to determine which profile the camera is using. This is shown under the "Video bitstream" section in AVInaptic, seen below:

    CPU Usage and Latency

    As we found in our previous 2012 test of baseline vs. main profile, there was no increase in VMS client or VLC media player CPU usage when decoding high profile streams vs. main vs. baseline. Note that our test PCs all use dedicated graphics cards, and client PCs without may see some increase, but this will vary.

    Visible latency between profiles was also unchanged. Some cameras showed more latency than others (typically well under a second), but this remained approximately the same regardless of what profile was selected.

    Full Light Comparison

    For this test, we used an interior full light scene, ~160 lux, with no moving objects, seen in the FOV example below.

    We measured bandwidth with all cameras standardized to quantization 27/28, at 10 FPS. In this scene, Dahua and Hikvision both decreased when stepping up in profile, though Dahua saw the biggest difference from main to high profile, while Hikvision decreased only when moving from baseline to main. Both Samsung and Sony ultimately increased slightly when moving from baseline through high.

    Dark with Lasers

    Next, we tested the cameras in an extreme motion scene (<1 lux, with a DJ laser one) to see what savings, if any, were caused by changing profiles.

    Again standardized to 10 FPS and Q27/28, Dahua and Hikvision decreased, while Samsung saw little change. However, Sony increased about 4 Mb/s between baseline and high profile, about a 20% increase.

    Setting Profiles for Different Cameras

    Finally, we break down a few examples of how to change between high, main, and baseline H.264 profiles for various IP cameras which support this feature. Below is a compilation of each cameras H.264 profile settings with their respective UI.


    In Dahua cameras, profile is selected under "Encode Mode" seen below. H.264 without notation uses main profile (which is what the camera defaults to) while H.264B and H.264H use Baseline and High profiles, respectively.


    Hikvision clearly and specifically allows the user to choose profile in its own dropdown, labeled simply "Profile."


    Samsung also clearly labels profile selections, simply BaseLine, Main, and High, under Advanced encoder settings.


    Finally, Sony does the same, with a dedicated dropdown for Profile in the Video Codec menu.


    Camera firmware versions are listed below:

    • Dahua IPC-HF3101: 2.420
    • Hikvision DC-2CD864FWD-E: 5.0.2
    • Samsung SNB-5004: 1.13_131218
    • Sony SNC-VB600: 1.12.0

1 report cite this report:

H.265 IP Camera Chip Announced (Ambarella S3) on Oct 28, 2014
Surveillance professionals have been talking about, and wanting H.265 for approaching 2 years. To date, though, only one manufacturer offers an...
Comments (36) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

TVT / InVid White Light Camera Tested Vs Hikvision ColorVu on Mar 18, 2020
With mega China manufacturers Dahua and Hikvision facing both bans and human rights abuse sanctions, many budget buyers are turning to smaller...
Uniview Color Low Light Camera Tested Vs Hikvision ColorVu on Jan 07, 2020
Hikvision has been marketing ColorVu aggressively. Now, Hikvision domestic rival Uniview (UNV) is offering aggressive pricing for their new rival...
Testing Bandwidth Vs. Low Light on Jan 16, 2019
Nighttime bandwidth spikes are a major concern in video surveillance. Many calculate bandwidth as a single 24/7 number, but bit rates vary...
Hanwha Low-Cost 4MP Camera Tested (QNV-7010R) on Jun 11, 2018
4MP usage is increasing noticeably, as IPVM 2018 resolution statistics show. And low-cost, fixed focal cameras, are popular for budget...
Smart Codec Guide on Feb 01, 2018
"Smart Codec" was once seemingly a marketing buzzword, but in 2020, nearly all new camera models include this tehcnology. These marketing names...
Multicasting Surveillance Tutorial on Jan 04, 2018
Network bandwidth can be a concern for some surveillance systems. While improvements in video codecs, such as smart codecs for H.264 and H.265,...
Hikvision vs Dahua Access Shootout on Oct 26, 2017
Dahua and Hikvision have spent heavily expanding internationally in video surveillance. Now, both companies are looking to do similarly in access...
Geovision 4MP Super Low Cost Turret Tested (EBD-4700) on Sep 29, 2017
~$100 cameras, even for 4MP, are now expected by many dealers, as price cuts and ongoing sales have set this expectation. At the same time, many...
Hikvision H.265+ Tested on Jun 27, 2017
Hikvision, which in the past few years released H.264+ (see test results) has now released H.265+, that claims even greater bandwidth savings. We...
Instant Cloud For Hikvision - Manything on Apr 28, 2017
One ISC West exhibitor had a very specific and clear pitch - cloud for Hikvision: In this note, we examine their offering, key differentiators,...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Access Control Online Show - July 2020 - With 40+ Manufacturers - Register Now on Jul 01, 2020
IPVM is excited to announce our July 2020 Access Control Show. With 40+ companies presenting across 4 days, this is a unique opportunity to hear...
Hanwha Face Mask Detection Tested on Jul 01, 2020
Face mask detection or, more specifically lack-of-face-mask detection, is an expanding offering in the midst of coronavirus. Hanwha in partnership...
UK Government Says Fever Cameras "Unsuitable" on Jul 01, 2020
The UK government's medical device regulator, MHRA, told IPVM that fever-seeking thermal cameras are "unsuitable for this purpose" and recommends...
Camera Course Summer 2020 on Jun 30, 2020
This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology testing. Lots of manufacturer training...
Worst Over But Integrators Still Dealing With Coronavirus Problems (June Statistics) on Jun 30, 2020
While numbers of integrators very impacted by Coronavirus continue to drop, most are still moderately dealing with the pandemic's problems, June...
FLIR Screen-EST Screening Software Tested on Jun 30, 2020
In our FLIR A Series Test, the cameras' biggest drawback was their lack of face detection, requiring manual adjustment when screening each...
Dahua Buenos Aires Bus Screening Violates IEC Standards and Dahua's Own Instructions on Jun 30, 2020
Dahua has promoted Buenos Aires bus deployments as "solutions that facilitate community safety". However, they violate IEC standards and,...
UK Firm Markets False Fever Screening, Hikvision Disavows on Jun 30, 2020
A UK security firm falsely claimed its Hikvision-based thermal solution could be used for "accurately detecting fever in any person", even claiming...
Industry Study: 83% of US Temperature Screening Sellers Falsely Say Not Medical Devices on Jun 29, 2020
83% of US companies selling temperature screening devices, aka 'fever' detectors, claim they are not medical devices, contrary to FDA definition,...
Manufacturers on Virtual 'ISC West' 2020 and Potential ISC West 2021 on Jun 29, 2020
With the 2020 ISC West show now officially canceled, attention turns to Reed's new "ISC West 2020 Virtual Event" planned for October and for the...