H.265 Usage Statistics 2019

Avatar
Sean Patton
•Published Apr 19, 2019 14:05 PM

H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has increased substantially.

IPVM Image

However, major manufacturers including Avigilon, Axis, and Bosch still only support H.265 on a minority of their cameras. Plus, smart codecs have emerged as an important alternative means to reduce bandwidth usage (see Smart Codec Usage Statistics).

So how widely is H.265 being used?

180 integrators responded answering:

In the past year, what percentage of cameras did you deploy that used H.265 for streaming/recording video? Why?

Key ******

*** ********* *** ****** *******:

  • * *********** ******** ** ********** ********* indicated ****** ** ** *** ** H265.
  • **** *** ********** ********* ******** *** cameras **** ***** ****
  • **** *********** *** *********** ****-********** *** bandwidth *** ******* *******
  • ***/*** ******* ** *.*** ******* *** the ****** *********** **** **, ** did ***
  • ********* *** *** ********* *.***

Statistics *********

*******, ******* * */*** ** ******* in *** **** **** **** *.***:

IPVM Image

** *** **** ****, ******* * third ** *********** **** ** *.*** at ***, ******* *** ****** ** usage ****** ***********:

IPVM Image

Not ***** - ***** ****** *******

**** **** ***-***** ** *********** ******** not ***** *.*** ** ***. *** common ******* *** ******** ** **** utilizing ***** ******, *******, **** ********* was *** **** ******** ******* ***** codec *****. *********** **** ***** * lack ** ******** ******, *** ***** manufacturer ** ****** *** ******** *.***.

****, ***** *** **** ********* ** which ****** ************* ***** *.***, *** that ***** ****** (*.*. **** *********, Hanwha **********) *** *** ********* ** H.264. ** **** ******, ***** ****** can ** **** ** *********** **** H.265 *** *********** ******** ** *********.

  • "*** *************/***** ** ******* ** ********* use *** *** ***** *.*** ***, but * *** **** ********** ********** greatly **** **** ** ** *** using **** ************* **** **** *.*** cameras."
  • "****. *** **** ***** ****** ** have **** ** **** *** ******, that *** ****** **** *********** **** Milestone."
  • "*% *** ******. *********** *** *****."
  • "*%, ** ***** ****** **** ** the ****** ** *************."
  • "****, ********* ** *** **** ******* so *** *.*** **** *********."
  • "*% - **** *** ********* *** H.264 ** *** ** ***** ********."
  • "*. **** **** ********* ** *.***, H.265 **** *** ******* ****** ******* to *********."
  • "****. ** **** *** **, *.*** serves *********' ******** *** ******* ** far."
  • "** **** *** **** *** *.*** supported ******* ***."
  • "*. ** *** ****** **** ******* which *****'* ********* *.***."
  • "*% - **** ** ***** * new ********** **** ** *** *** using ** ** ***."
  • "*, **** ***** *** ************."
  • "*% ** ***** **** ****** *********."
  • "**** - ** *****'* **** **** streaming ****** ***."
  • "*% *** ******* ** ********* ******* do *** ******* *.*** ** **** time."

Not ***** - ******* / *********** ********

* ****** ** *********** *** *** not ***** *.*** ********* *** ****** a ****** ** **** ** *** themselves, ** **** **** ***** ********* it **** ********** *********** ******, ********** related ** **** **** ******** ** VMS *******:

  • "**** ****** *** *.***. *.*** ****** great *** **** **** ** ******* but ******* *** ******** *** ******* is *** *** ****. * ***** it **** *** ***** ********** *** as ** ** ******* *** ******* changes **** *** ** ** *.*** and *** ** * **** ***. I ***** ****** ***** ** *.*** and **** *** **** ******* *** better *******."
  • "*%. *** ******** ******* *** *** H265 ******* ***(****** ****). ** **** have ******** ***** ***********, ****** ******* station ********, **** **** ** **** read ** ** **** ** ******* to *** ***** **** ******** ** performance"
  • "*%. ** ***** ** **** *** H.265 *** **** *** *********** ** the ****** **** ***** *********** ** went **** ** *.***"
  • "** **** ******* *.***. ** ****'* use ** **** **** ** ******** cameras."
  • "*% ** *** ******** ** **** H265 *** ***** *** ***** **** issues ** **** **** **** ****** side ********* *** ******** ***** ***** means ********* **** ** *** *** latest ****** ********."
  • "*% ** **** *****'* *** **** to **** **."
  • "*%. **** **** *** **** **********"
  • "**** ** ** ***, ** ** is ***** ***** ********** ****** *** we *** ******** *** ******* ** accommodate."

******* ** *** ****** *** *** Support

*** **** ****** ******* ** *** H.265 ** ** ** *** **** is ** *** ***/*** ******** **, or *** ********** ********* ****** ************ offers **:

  • "** *** ** **** **'* **** close ** **%, ******* *** ****** Q ****** *.*** *****'* ****** ** the ****** *** ** ***** **** some ** *** ** **** **** to *.***. *** *.*** *** *** Axis ******* ****** ****."
  • "******** ****** **% - ******* *** camera, **************, ***."
  • "**% *** **** *.***, ****** ********* of ************-********** ******* *** ***."
  • "**%. ******* ** *************. ** ****** and *** ******* **** ** ******, then ** **** **."
  • "**% - **** ** *** ***** stock ** *** *** ** *** not **** **** *************. ** *** h265 ***** ** ***."
  • "******** **%, ** **** ***** ***** alot ** ******* **** *** *** would **** ******* *.***"
  • "* ***** ***** **** **** **% since ** *** ***** *** ****** from ******** ** **** ** **** with *********. "
  • "* *******. *** **** ** ***** supports ****"
  • "**** ***** **% ** ******* ********* because ******** ** ******** ***/*** **** supports *.***. *** ***** ******** ***** forward *** *** * ** *** VMS ******** **** ** *.*** ** we **** *** * **** ****** in *** **** **-** ** *** total ****** ** ****** ***** ********* or ******** ** *.***."
  • "**** ******** ** *** *** *** we *** **** ******** ******* ********** it"
  • "*%. *** *** *** *** ******* it"
  • "**% **** **** ** *** ********* automatically **** ****"
  • "*** ******* ******** **** *.*** ***** supported"
  • "**%. **** ** ********** ****** ** most **********."
  • "*% ********* ****** ** *** ********'* capabilities."
  • "*%. *** *** ******* ** ***** not **** ****** ********* ******* **."
  • "******** **%. ** *** ** **** available."
  • "********* ** *** ******* ********, **'** utilize *** *.*** ***** *** ********* and *********. *** *.*** ***** ** more ********* ** *** ******* *********."
  • "**% **** ***** ******* *** ******* H.265."

*** ******** ** ********* **** ***** all ** ****** *** ** ***** cameras ********* *.***, ************ ***** ************ support ** *** ****** *** ***** it:

  • "***% *** ********* ****** **** ******** it ** *****'* ** ****** *** to *** **"
  • "****** *** *** ******* ********* ******** supported *** **** *** ** *.***. There ** ******* ** **** *** you ** *** * ******** ** bandwidth. ******** ******** **"
  • "***% *** ********* ******* **** *.*** "
  • "***%. ** **** ** *** *** latest ********* (** **** ** ********) protocol."
  • "****** *** ** ****. *** ******* recorders *** **** ** ****/******* *** already ****."
  • "******** **** **** ** *** *** cameras ** *.*** *******"

Using - ******* / ********* **** *******

* ****** ****** *** ***** *.*** was ********** ******* ********* *** ******* costs. ********* ** *** ************, **** testing ******* **** ************* ******************** ** ********* *******, ********** **** H.265 ***** ******:

  • "** ** **% *****, ***** ** compact **** **** *******, **** ***** to ******"
  • "* ****** * *** ******** *** they ****'* *****. * ** ********* putting ******** ******* ******* **** *.*** the ******* ******** ** * *** plus.."
  • "**** ** *** *** ******* ******* H.265 *** ** *** *** ******* with **** **********. ***** ***** ** some ******* *******, ** ***** ** this **** ** *** ******** ** looking *** "******* ****" *******."
  • "***%, ****** ********* *** ********** ********* time"
  • "** *** ******* ************* **% *.*** cameras. **** ******* ***** ******* ***** on *** *** *** ********** *** network ****** ***** ** ***'* **** to ****** *** **** **********."
  • "** *** ***% ** ******* **** support *.***. ********* ** ***** **** to *.*** ** ****** ** ** older *** **** **** *** ******* it. ** ***** ** **** ******* capacity"
  • "**** ** *** ******* ** ******* today **** *** *.***. *****, ** has ** ** **** ********* ************. Storage ** ****** *** ** ***** for **** ** *** ****** *******, but ************** *** ******."
  • "**% - ** *** ***** **** on *** *** ******* *** ** decreased ********* *** ******* ************. ** do ******** ** ********** *** ********** to ******** *******."
  • "**% ** ******* ***** *** *** on ******** ** *** *** **** as **** ** ******* ** ** can. "
  • "**% *** ******* ******* *** ** allow *** ******* ****** ******"
  • "**%. ******* ** ***** ******* ********"
  • "** ***** ***** ** *** *** better *********** ** *** **** ** bandwidth ***** *** ******* *****."

*******

*.*** ***** **** ********* ****, ****** because **** ************* *** ****** *******. However, ** ***** ******* ****, ******* uptake *** **** ********** ****** *** nowhere **** ** ********* ** *** move ** *.*** ** *** ******** of ***** ******.

Comments (14)
Avatar
Sean Nelson
•Apr 19, 2019
Nelly's Security

We've had some issues with cross compatibility between brands via Onvif using h.265. h.264, no problem. 

(1)
Avatar
Igor Falomkin
•Apr 22, 2019
AxxonSoft
In reply to Sean Nelson

H.265 was officially supported only in ONVIF Profile T, not in Profile S. May be this was the reason.

(2)
SH
Slava H
•Apr 19, 2019

Native support of h.265 in mobile and browsers would be a game changer. Without such support h.264 smart codecs are easier to use.

https://caniuse.com/#feat=hevc

(2)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
•Apr 20, 2019
In reply to Slava H

Can you explain the issue in more detail? I've been selling end to end H.265 solutions for a couple of years now and both browsers and mobile devices do live and playback perfectly fine.

SH
Slava H
•Apr 20, 2019
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

Look at the link provided in the post above to see h.265 support (https://caniuse.com/#feat=hevc)

 

(1)
Avatar
Igor Falomkin
•Apr 22, 2019
AxxonSoft
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

If a browser is not able to natively play h265 then there are a couple of options:

- to recompress video on a server to something playable and this takes a lot of resources

- to use a special player (Flash, Java, ActiveX, ...) and have compatibility problems with different browsers, because the technologies are out of date.

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
•Apr 20, 2019

Based on this survey, it seems there is still a lot of misunderstanding out there. H.265 does not compress more than H.264, it is a more efficient way of compression. Video degradation is less in H.265 than 264 when the camera is at the same bitrate and compression value. Smart Codecs greatly degrade video quality. Optimally, it's only in places that are not important, but it doesn't always work out like that. Smart Codec in no way equal to or a replacement for the benefits of H.265. In my experience, the misunderstanding is garnered from camera vendors who did not adopt (or still have a long way to go) H.265 and are in defense mode to save sales until they catch up. Reminds me of the time when analog manufacturers were fighting the IP revolution claiming that analog is superior because of stability, cost, simplicity and free of latency. Look what happened to those manufacturers. 

(1)
(3)
JH
John Honovich
•Apr 20, 2019
IPVM
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

Smart Codec in no way equal to or a replacement for the benefits of H.265

It's actually better because it reduces the bit rate substantially but is lower overhead for decoding. H.265 by itself will lose in bandwidth efficiency to smart H.265. Even H.265 needs smart codecs to compete.

Optimally, it's only in places that are not important, but it doesn't always work out like that

Examples?

The main optimization in smart codecs is the dynamic I frame interval which works very well since it is not reducing quality at all, it is simply analyzing for a lack of motion and, when that occurs, it lengthens the I frame interval, much more significantly reducing bandwidth consumption that H.265 alone.

(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
•Apr 20, 2019
In reply to John Honovich

If decoding processing isn't a primary concern (completely understood that it often is, for both server-side decoding for VMD/analytics and client viewing), though, H.265 would be the better choice, in almost every instance.

Avatar
Igor Falomkin
•Apr 22, 2019
AxxonSoft
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #3

Intel QuickSync helps a lot for the client-side deciding.

SH
Slava H
•Apr 20, 2019
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

I assume you are making claims about adoption from end-user perspective.

From end user perspective IP cameras were more user friendly. It's not about technology it's about being easier for end user. Technology just "enabler". You were able to use IP Camera in any browser using MJPEG (or JPEG on timer). While analog cameras required TV or DVR.

As it stands now h.265 is not user friendly enough. Either special player/add-on needed or transcoding of h.265 in browser into h2.64 and this process which has its own limitations. 

(2)
U
Undisclosed #2
•Apr 20, 2019

H.264 & H.265, why? Too many patent licenses and greedy people, IMHO that is why H.265 is low pop.

VP9 has a free competitor that rips H.264's butt and rivals H.265 without all the content lawsuits. The new young-ling on the block is AV1 (not  A V I). If it completes nerd approvals, it may soon be on your camera or umm...Cloud-Onvif.

It's not that H.265 does not work but in comparison to AV1 it is the convoluted vs. the complex. I really don't mind either but I always have to roll with the RED TEAM, remember guys..RED TEAM ALWAYS WINS.

Happy Friday!  /Cheers

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Igor Falomkin
•Apr 22, 2019
AxxonSoft
In reply to Undisclosed #2

The main problem with VP9 is that it is not supported by cameras' SoC. Please correct me if this information is out of date.

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #4
•Apr 20, 2019

I believe this will change dramatically soon due to ONVIF profile T. 

(1)