H.264 vs MJPEG - Quality and Bandwidth Tested

Author: John Honovich, Published on Jul 28, 2010

Encoding video optimally is critical for IP video surveillance systems. Should you choose H.264 or MJPEG? While industry momentum certainly favors H.264, when and how to best use H.264 are important questions.

We believe the 3 key questions in considering H.264 vs MJPEG are:

  • How much bandwidth savings does H.264 provide over MJPEG?
  • What type of image quality differences can you expect between H.264 and MJPEG?
  • What differences in computing load will you experience between H.264 and MJPEG?

This report provides our results and recommendations on the first two questions - bandwidth and image quality.From our tests, we recommend the following 3 key criteria to understand H.26/MJPEG's impact on quality and bandwidth:

  • Determine the complexity of the scene being captured/recorded
  • Determine the streaming mode / control of the camera being used
  • Determine the ratio of total frames to I frames (for H.264)

The tests reveal no magic numbers - the answer is not 80% bandwidth savings or 10% less quality (or any other single value for X or Y). While H.264 generally reduces bandwidth consumption significantly, it depends on multiple factors (including complexity, streaming mode, frame rate and i frame rate). VBR vs CBR selection is especially important, having a especially large impact on use and performance. Finally, while H.264 can deliver the same visible image quality as MJPEG, depending on the settings you use (especially streaming mode), you can easily generate worse quality.

Inside our premium report, we examine and explain each of these elements in-depth with a series of sample videos and tutorial video screencasts. The video introduction below overviews the approach we took:

Premium members should allocate 1-3 hours to read the full report

******** ***** ********* ** ******** *** ** ***** ************ *******. Should *** ****** *.*** ** *****? ***** ******** ******** ********* favors *.***, **** *** *** ** **** *** *.*** *** important *********.

** ******* *** * *** ********* ** *********** *.*** ** MJPEG ***:

  • *** **** ********* ******* **** *.*** ******* **** *****?
  • **** **** ** ***** ******* *********** *** *** ****** ******* H.264 *** *****?
  • **** *********** ** ********* **** **** *** ********** ******* *.*** and *****?

**** ****** ******** *** ******* *** *************** ** *** ***** two ********* - ********* *** ***** *******.**** *** *****, ** recommend *** ********* * *** ******** ** ********** *.**/*****'* ****** on ******* *** *********:

  • ********* *** ********** ** *** ***** ***** ********/********
  • ********* *** ********* **** / ******* ** *** ****** ***** used
  • ********* *** ***** ** ***** ****** ** * ****** (*** H.264)

*** ***** ****** ** ***** ******* - *** ****** ** not **% ********* ******* ** **% **** ******* (** *** other ****** ***** *** * ** *). ***** *.*** ********* reduces ********* *********** *************, ** ******* ** ******** ******* (********* complexity, ********* ****, ***** **** *** * ***** ****). *** vs *** ********* ** ********** *********, ****** * ********** ***** impact ** *** *** ***********. *******, ***** *.*** *** ******* the **** ******* ***** ******* ** *****, ********* ** *** settings *** *** (********** ********* ****), *** *** ****** ******** worse *******.

****** *** ******* ******, ** ******* *** ******* **** ** these ******** **-***** **** * ****** ** ****** ****** *** tutorial ***** ***********. *** ***** ************ ***** ********* *** ******** we ****:

******* ******* ****** ******** *-* ***** ** **** *** **** report

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

*******:

*** ************ ***** ** ********** / ******* (******* ** ** MJPEG, ****-*, *.***, ***.). *** **** ******** ** *** **** and **** **** ** ***********/******** ** *********.

*** **** ********** ******* *.*** *** ***** ** **** ***** only ********** ********** ****** ** ***** ***** *.*** ********** ****** frames. *** *****, **** ***** ** ***** ** ********** ** itself, **** ** ** *** **** *********** * ****** ** JPEG ****** ******** (**** ****** ****). *** *.***, **** ** the ****** *** ********** ** ****** (****** ** * ** initizaliation *****) ***** **** ** *** ****** **** ****** ******* from *** ******** ***** (****** * ** *********** ******). **** can **** * *********** ****** ** ********* ******** ** ***** which ******* **** ***** ****.

[****: **** *********** ***** ** *** ************ ******** ****. ** is ************** *** **** ******** ******** **** ****** ** *****'* IP ***** ************ *******.]

*********** ** ******* ** **********. *** ************ ******* ** *********** patterns *** ************ ***** ******** ** ******* *****/********. *** **** complex ** *** **** ********* ****** * ******* **, *** less ****** ** ** *** * ******* ** ** ********** (or *** ****** ** ** ** ********** ****). ***** *.*** can ******** '****' **** *****, **** ********* ** ** ** important ******* ** ************* ********* ** *********** *** ***** ********.

****** ********: ** **** ****, ** **** * **** ****** ******** from*********** ******* *** *.*** *******.******** *** ********* ********. ** *** ********** **** *****, ** ******* * **** video **** ******* ********** ** ********** *** ******* (******** ********* ******** **** ******).

Criteria *: ********* *** ********** ** *** ***** ***** ********/********

******* *** *** ***** ** *.***, ** ** ********* ** know *** ********** ** **** *****. *******, ** ** **** more ********* ** ********** **** **** ***** *.***. **** ** because ********* ** *** ***** *** *.*** *** **** *********** than ***** *** ***** (**** ****** ** ******** ***** *** our *****, *.*** ********* *********** *** ****** ***** ** *** complexity).By ***** **********, ** **** *** **** ******** ** ********* in *** ***** ** ***** **** *** *** *********. *** instance, * ****** ******* ** ***** ** * ***** **** is *** **** '*******' **** * ******* *******. ** *******, the **** *****, ******, *****, ******* *** ********* ** * scene, *** **** ******* **** ***** **** **.

*** **** ******* * ***** ** *** **** ********* **** be ****** ** ******** *** **** ******* *****. **** ** inherent ** *** ******.

******* *********, *** ********** ** * ***** *** ****** ********* on *** **** ** *** ** *** **** ** ****. For ********, * ***** ** ****** ******* ** * ***** room ** * *** **** ******* ***** **** **** **** lunchroom ** ******** **** *** ****** ** ******. ** ******** the **** *******, *** ****** **** ******* **** ********* *** the ****** **** * ***** ** ****** **** **** **** the ***** **** ** **********.

**** ******* ****** *** ***** *** **** ********* ****** ****** video ************ ** **** ******* ******** *** *********** ******** (** at ***** ********** ** ********).

** *** ***** ***** ** **** *** ********* *********** ******* for * ******* ** ****** ******:*** ****** ** ********** ** bandwidth ******* ************* ******* ***** *** *.***. ** *** *****, with *****, *** ********** ** ********* ****** *** *** ***** to **** ******* ****** **** ******** ** * ****** ** 3. *******, ** *** ***** **** *.***, *** ****** ** bandwidth ****** ****** ** ***** ** *****.

*** ***** ***** ********* *** ************ ******* ***** ********** *** bandwidth ******** *** ***** *** *.*** *** ****** ******:

*** *.*** ***** ******** ******* **** *********** ** *** ***** and *.*** ********** *****. *.***'* *** **** ******** *** ********* with **** ******* ****** ** ** ********* *.***'* ******* ** compress ****** ******. ** ********, ***** **** *** ******** ****** frames ** ** ***** **** **** **** ******* ******. *******, since ***** **** **** ** ******** ********** ****** *** ***** more ******* ****** ***** ******* **** *********, ***** ********* ******* does ******** *** **** ******** **** *.***.** ** * ******* that *****'* ********* ******* *** ******** ** **** *** ****** size **** *** **** **** **********. **** ************* *** ***** MJPEG ******* ** ***** ***** *****, ****** *** ********** **** MJPEG ** ********** *****. **** *** ****** ** **** ******* the ******** ** ********* **** *** ** ********** ** ********** limited *** *****. *******, **** **** ****** **** ****** ***** of ******* **** (** ********* ************).

**** ****** *.*** ****** *********** ********* ******* ****** *** *****, the ***** ***** ** ****** ******** *** ********* ***** ************ introduces * ****** ******* **** *** *** *********** **** *****.

Criteria *: ********* *** ********* **** / ******* ** *** ****** ***** ****

*** **** ********* ****** ** ********* **** ** ************* *** use ** ******** *** **** (***) **. ******** *** **** (VBR) *** *.***. ***** *** ***** **** **** ***** ***** size *** ** **** ****** ****** *** ***** ******* ******* or ********, **** ** ******** ** ***** *** *********** *** H.264.

**** ******** *** ****, *** ** ****** **** ******** *** same ********* ***** ********** ** *** *****'* **********. ** ********* is ************ ** ***** *** **********, ******* **** ** **********.

**** ******** *** ****, *** ** ****** **** **** ********* the ********* ***** ** **** *** ******* ****** **** *** scene's **********.

** *** ***** *****, ** **** *** *** *** **** changes ******* **** *** ***** ******* *** **** *** ** always **** *** ****:

********** **** *** ****** *******. **** ** ******** ** ********** and ** ********* ********* ***** ** *** *** ** *** streaming. *** ***** ** ************ ** ********** *** **** *********** loses **** ** *** ******** **** (****** ***** ***********). ****'* key **** ** *** '*****' *** *********** **. **** ** controlled ** *** ************ ***** - *** ****** *** *****, the ******* *** *********** *** *** ***** ******* *** ***** will ******.

**** ***, ** *** ********* ** ************, *** ** ****** provider **** ****** *******. **** *** ** ************ ** *** ways - ****** ******* ******* ** * ***** ***** ** reduce *** ****** ** ****** ********. ************* **** ** **** options **** ******* *** **** *** ******* ****** **. ** the ***** *****, ** **** ******** ** ********* ************* ****** conventions, ******** *** ******* *** *** ******* ***********.

** * **** ****, **** ***, ** *** ********* ***** is '*** ****' *** *** * *** ********** *****, *** quantization ***** **** ** *******, ********* *** * **** ******** compression. *********** *** **** *** *** ****** *** *********** **** are, ** *** ********* ** **** ***** ******** ** ******* benefits *** *** ****/***********.

** *** ** ****** ******** ***** *** ******* ** ****** the ******* ******* ** * ***** ***** **** **** ** done ******* ** ******** *** ************ *****

******* *** ************ ***** ** ** *** ***** ** *** H.264 ***** *** **** ***** **** ***** *****. ** *** video *****, ** **** *.*** *** ******* ** ******** *** rates. ***** * ****** ********, ** **** *** *** ************ level ****** *** *** **** ** ********** **** ******* ** visible ***** *******.

****** ********: ** *** ********** *****, ** **** * **** ****** analyzer *************** ******* *** *.*** *******.******** *** ********* *********** ********* ****** ** ********.

Should *** *** *** ** ***?

******** ** ******* ** *** *** ** *** *** *.*** is ******* *** **** ********* ******** ** ***** *.***. *** choice *** *********** ******* ** ********* *******, ****** ******* *** infrastructure ********.

** *** *** ***, *** ******** *** ******** ** **** infrastructure - ************ ** ******* ****** ** ****** *** ****** that **** ** ***** ***** ******** **** **** ********** ******* (e.g., ********, *******) *** **** **** ********* (*.*., ******* ******* VMS ********, ******* **********). **** ************** ***** *** * ****** multiplication ** ***** ******* ***** ****** ****.

*** *** ***** ********* ** ***** *** *** (*) ********* quality *********** ** (*) ************** ************. ** *** *** *** CBR **** *** *** *** **** *****'* **********, *** **** lose ****** ****** ** ******* ****** (** ********* *****). ** you *** *** *** **** *** ****, *** **** ***** storage *** ******* **** ********** ********* **** ****** *** **** video.

*** *** *** ******** ********* *** **********. **** ***, *** can ** ********* **** *** ******* ** **** ***** **** be **********. ****, *** ***** ****** ** ******* *** ********* will ** ********* ** *** *** **** **** **** *** fall ** ***** *** *****'* **********.

*** *** ******* *** *** ** **** ** ***** ************** planning **** *********. ******** **** ** ******** *** *********** ***** case ********* ** **** ******* ********.

***** *** *** *** *** *** *** **** ********** *** streaming *.***, ************* ************** *** ** ******** ** ******* *** two. ** *** *****, ** ***** * '******' ********** **** may ** ** ********:

  • ****'* ***, **** *** ** * *** **** *** *** for *** ********** ***** ****/**********, **** ******** '****-****' **** *** rate ******* *** ****** * *** **** **** *** ** significantly ******. *** ********** ** **** *** ******* ********** *** bit **** ** **** *** *** ** ******* ******** ***** to ********** *******. ***** **** ***** *****, ** *** ** an ********** ******** ** *** **** ******** **** ******* ** meet *** ********** *** ****.
  • ********* ****** * ********* ***** **** ******* *** ******* *** rates. ** ****, **** ** * *********** *** **** **** a ********** ***** ** *** *****. **** ******** **** *********** to ****** ****** ********** ******. *******, ** *** *****, **** feature *** *** ****** ** **** ** *********.

Criteria *: ********* *** ***** ** ***** ****** ** * ******

* *** **** ** *.***'* ***** ***** **** * ******. These *** *** ***** **** **** '********' *** ******** ** changes **** *** **** ******** ** * ******. ***** *** size ** * ****** *** **** (********* ** ***** **********/*******), usually * ****** *** *** ******* **** * ******. ** the ***** *****, ** **** *** **** ** * *** P ****** ** * ****** ********:

[****: ***** *** * ****** ** **** *** *** ************ majority ** ***** ************ *.*** *************** **** *** * ****** currently.]

*** **** * ****** ***** *** ** * ******, *** more ********* ******* **** *.*** ********. *** ********, * ***** with **** * * ***** *** ****** ******** *** **** bandwidth **** * ***** **** ** * ****** *** ****** (meaning ***** ***** ** ** * ***** *** ** * frames *** ********. *******, **** ******* ******* **** *****, ****** the *** * ***** ********* *** * **** ***** ********* reduction ******** ** *****. ** *** ***** *****, ** *********** these *********:

******* *** *** ***** ** ***** ****** ** * ****** can ** ********* *** ** ***** ******. ** ******* **** on **** *** ** ****** ************ ******** *** **** *** VMS ******* ** *********. ** *** **********, *** **** ****** I ***** **** ** * *** ****** (********** ** *** many ****** *** ****** ***** *** ********). *******, ************ ************ on * * ***** *** * ******* *** **** ****** Station ******** ** * * ***** *** ** * ****** (meaning **** ** *** ****** ** * ***, ** * frame **** **** ** ****/********* ***** ** *******).

*** ******* **** ** **** ******* * ***** ********* ** improve ***** ******** / *******. *** ****** *** * ***** interval, *** **** ****** ***** **** ** ****** ** ******** in ********** **** ** ******** *****. ***** * ****** **** 'describe' * **** ** *** *****, ** ** ********* *** possible ** ******* * **** ***** **-****** ***** ** * frame *******. **, *** ******* ** * ***** ** **** generated ***** ** *******, **** *** ****** ********* ********.

Sample *********** **** ********* ******* ************ ****

********* * ******** ****** ** **** ***** ** *.*** ******* or ********* ******** ** ***** ** *************. ** ******** ********* design ******** **** *** ************ ***** ***** ** ********** *** address.

** *** ***** ******* ** *** ******, ** ******* * setting ************ **** *********** ********* ********* ** *** *** ******* parameters ** ***** ******** ***********: (*) ***** **********, (*) * frame ****, (*) ***** **** *** (*) *** ** ***.

Scene ********** *********

Daytime ****** - H.264 bandwidth was 200 Kbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 11.8Mbps, a 59x difference, and a 98% bandwidth savings. Image quality between both codecs were similar; we did not note any significant variances.

Daytime ****** **** ******** - H.264 bandwidth was 790 Kbps. MJPEG bandwidth was 13.71Mbps, a 17x difference, and a 94% bandwidth savings. No significant image quality differences observed.

Daytime ******* - H.264 bandwidth was 2.63 Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 39.23Mbps, a 15x difference, and a 93% bandwidth savings. No significant differences in image quality observed.

Night ****** (* ***) - H.264 bandwidth was 720 Kbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 13.27Mbps, a 18x difference, with a 95% bandwidth savings. Although both images look similar in quality, the MJPEG scene has a little more visible noise, while the H.264 image is a little softer.

Night ****** (***** *****) - H.264 bandwidth was 2.92 Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 15.15 Mbps, a 5x difference, and 81% bandwidth savings. A totally black image in itself is not a complex scene, but the random camera noise on screen (which vary between vendors) raises the complexity significantly. Although it is not apparent on the exported clips or screencaps, we witnessed the MJPEG scene suffer from significantly more camera noise than the H.264 scene.

Night ******* - H.264 bandwidth was 1.89Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 17.57 Mbps, a 9x difference, with 89% bandwidth savings. No significant image quality differences observed.

I ***** **** *********

30fps, ** * ****** *** ****** ****** ******* - In this scenario, H.264 bandwidth was 3.48 Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 11.8 Mbps, which shows a 3x difference. Although having a maximum I frame ratio, this scenario did not show any visible quality gain, but still having a bandwidth savings of 71% from the MJPEG scenario.

30fps, * * ***** *** ****** ****** ******* - In this scenario, H.264 bandwidth was 280 Kbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 11.8 Mbps, which shows a 42x difference, and a 98% bandwidth savings. This being a default i frame configuration for many camera vendors, this scenario has no significant variances in MJPEG image quality.

Frame **** *********

1fps, * * ***** *** ****** ******* ******* - This scenario shows the H.264 bandwidth at 1.1Mbps. Contrasting this to a 1fps MJPEG scenario, with bandwidth consumption at 1.3 Mbps, a 1.2x difference, and 15% bandwidth savings. No obvious visual differences in quality. Contrast this to the example above for 30fps, 30 i frames. While the ratio of I frames to total frames is the same (1:1), the scene above is indoor daytime - delivering significantly enhanced bandwidth reduction because of the relatively simpler scene.

30fps, * * ***** *** ****** ******* ******* - H.264 bandwidth was 2.63 Mbps. Contrasting this to a 1fps MJPEG scenario, with a bandwidth consumption of 39.23 Mbps, a 15x difference, and 93% bandwidth savings . Quality wise, no obvious visual differences, but h264 clip is running slightly less frames at 27.99fps.

CBR ** *** *********
CBR ***** ***** ******* ******* - In this scenario, H.264 bandwidth was 2.24 Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth consumption was 16 Mbps, a 7x difference. H.264 bandwidth savings was 86%. However, H,.264 stream exhibited clear visual degradation compared to the MJPEG stream.
CBR ***** ***** ******* ******* - In this scenario, H.264 bandwidth was 3.1 Mbps. Contrasting it to the same 16Mbps MJPEG scenario, shows a 5x difference, 80% bandwidth savings. Comparing to the previous scenario of 2Mbps, video quality was significantly improved and matched the visible quality of MJPEG.
VBR ***** ******* ******* - In this scenario, H.264 bandwidth was 2.63 Mbps. By contrast, MJPEG bandwidth was 6X. H.264 bandwidth savings was 84%. H.264 stream quality exhibited no deficincies relative to MJPEG.
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Sports Stadium Security Design Recommendations on Jul 24, 2017
Sports stadiums pose many challenges for designing security systems. The facilities vary from being mostly vacant, to packed with tens of thousands...
Genetec Mission Control Tested on Jul 13, 2017
Genetec continues to move up market with their Mission Control, "Decision Support System", bringing PSIM-like procedures and incident management to...
OnSSI Gets $16 Million Funding on Jul 11, 2017
OnSSI has had a rollercoaster past few years. Between acquiring VMS company Seetec, breaking up with former OEM partner Milestone and a rocky...
Nest Cam IQ Tested on Jul 10, 2017
Nest has released their latest entry in their camera line, the Nest Cam IQ, touting 4K "Supersight", facial recognition, "HD audio", invisible IR,...
ONVIF Widely Used Toolkit gSOAP Vulnerability Discovered on Jul 10, 2017
A vulnerability has been discovered in a toolkit that video surveillance manufacturers widely use for implementing ONVIF. In this report, we...
H.265 / HEVC Codec Tutorial 2017 on Jun 30, 2017
For years, video surveillance professionals have talked about the potential for H.265. Now, in 2017, H.265 is starting to gain mainstream...
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...
Milestone / Canon Launch Cloud Startup Arcus Global on Jun 27, 2017
Milestone has spun off a business, Arcus Global, funded by their parent company Canon. The new company aims to transform the VSaaS market with an...
Covert Cloud Camera Service Launching (KJB) on Jun 22, 2017
Cloud IP cameras, for consumers, has become increasingly commonplace. However, covert cameras, lag there, with few options. Now, North America's...
45 Drives 'Lowest Cost' Enterprise Storage Company Profile on Jun 21, 2017
45 Drives claims the "lowest cost per Hard Drive Slot in the industry." But who or what is '45 Drives'? What started as a product design to...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Hikvision H.265+ Bullet Tested (2035) on Jul 24, 2017
Continuing our tests of Hikvision's new low cost Value Plus line, we bought and tested the 3MP DS-2CD2035FWD-I, now including H.265+. We shot the...
Sports Stadium Security Design Recommendations on Jul 24, 2017
Sports stadiums pose many challenges for designing security systems. The facilities vary from being mostly vacant, to packed with tens of thousands...
Competing Against Convergint on Jul 24, 2017
No integrator is more aggressively expanding than Convergint Technologies. Owned and funded by private equity firm KRG, Convergint has acquired...
Security Robots Are Just Entertainment on Jul 21, 2017
Great entertainment, no real security value.  That is the happy (or sad) state of security robots in 2017. Knightscope robot's drowning, the...
Wireless Burglar Alarm Sensors Guide on Jul 21, 2017
Wireless sensors for burglar alarm sensors are an increasingly common option for the historical labor intensive wired alarm systems. However,...
Competing Against ADT on Jul 20, 2017
ADT is one of the biggest players in the security industry, with ~$4 billion revenue. In 2017, they were acquired / merged with Protection...
Hikvision Launching Deep Learning Recorders on Jul 20, 2017
Hikvision has become a common choice for super low cost NVRs. Now, Hikvision is aiming to move up market, with deep learning NVRs that claim far...
PR Campaign Exploiting Manufacturer Cybersecurity on Jul 20, 2017
Manufacturers increasingly have a bulls-eye on their back. As cyber security solutions providers grow, they realize a great way to get publicity...
Axis Door Station Tested (A8105-E) on Jul 19, 2017
Axis continues their push into niche markets, especially audio, with network speakers, an IP horn, and video door stations. We bought and tested...
Manufacturer Favorability Guide on Jul 19, 2017
This 120 page PDF guide may be downloaded inside by all IPVM members. It includes our 20 manufacturer favorability rankings and 20 manufacturer...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact