The next two upcoming trends in IP cameras are H.265 and 4K Ultra HD. The questions, then, become, how important are they and is either likely to be stronger than the other. Recent IPVM poll and readers statistics show clear patterns.
4K would be valuable in offering better digital zoom, reduce camera count especially were identification is required ... a full HD camera would offer shy of 8 meters coverage for identification (250p/m) a 4K would cover double the horizontal length, hence half the cameras.
But i would particularly be interested in seeing the 4K performance with a panamorph lens, and what could it offer to the 360/180 a degree world
I know, arecont have a solution so does sentry 360 and my favorite (design) scallop imaging and others, but it would be getting closer to becoming main stream.
As the polls are favoring reduction in bandwidth with the h.265 promise, that could be achieved with the 4K by reducing the camera count.
"favoring reduction in bandwidth with the h.265 promise, that could be achieved with the 4K by reducing the camera count."
While a number of manufacturers pitch that, it rarely works out in practice, as camera count is equally or more impacted by angles and camera placement that cannot simply be eliminated by throwing more pixels on a single pole.
True, we won’t be seeing a 50% reduction in VMS licenses any time soon, because of the 4K replacing the HD.
But, it will surly replace the multiple HD cameras in particular where identification is required. That is where I see the density in cameras pointing in the same direction (hotel reception desks, bank counters, multiple adjacent entrance doors, high way cameras etc..)
The problem for reception desks, bank counters, etc., is still angles. Imagine 8 bank counter stations side by side - fairly common layout. That might be 50 foot wide across. You take a 1080p cameraand that's ~40ppf. Not bad. Go to 4Kand it's ~70ppf. Pretty good.
The problem is the horizontal angle of incident to the subjects on the edges. With a 50 foot wide FoV and a camera 10 feet away, the angle of incident is going to be 30+ degrees, which misses a significant part of customer's faces. No matter high the resolution, a single camera covering such an area is undermined by this practical problem.
Nick, I agree that MJPEG to H.264 was a huge relief and advance. Do keep in mind that even the claimed benefits of H.265 vs H.264 is far more modest. MJPEG to H.264 was 80%+ while H.264 to H.265 is 25-50%.
I believe that the H.265 codec's success will be determined solely by its ability to integrate. If it requires only a firmware update to many of the existing IP cameras it will be huge. If it requires all new equipment it will be a very slow adoption. I agree to the overall concensus here. However if I had to guess the sales team's battle cry will be "4k all the way!"
Hi Tom, It will almost certainly be more than just a firmware upgrade. I can only recall one example of an MPEG-4 encoder firmware upgrading to H.264. Everything else required buying new equipment. I suspect the same will be the case with H.265.