IP Camera Manufacturer Compression Comparison
Author: Derek Ward, Published on Feb 21, 2014
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 on Bandwidth
Axis 20MP Q1659 Camera Tested
on Jun 13, 2017
Axis has joined the super high resolution camera trend with their Q1659, a 20MP model equipped with Canon's APS-C sensor.
We tested the Q1659...
Camera Course Summer 2017
on Jun 08, 2017
Learn video surveillance and get certified.
IPVM provides live online classes, recorded videos, personal help, cutting edge education and...
48MP 180 Camera (Digital Watchdog) Test
on May 10, 2017
Camera resolution continues to advance, with Digital Watchdog offering the MegaPIX PANO 48MP 180° camera, the highest resolution mainstream camera...
Last Day - IP Networking Course May 2017
on Apr 26, 2017
Today is the last day to register for the May IP Networking Course.
This is the only networking course designed specifically for video...
Hanwha Lowest Cost WiseNet X Camera (XND-6010) Tested
on Apr 13, 2017
IPVM bought and tested the lowest-cost WiseNet X model, the indoor 2MP fixed focal XND-6010 dome, continuing our testing of Hanwha's new WiseNet X...
Pelco Surevision 3 Tested
on Apr 12, 2017
Pelco has released generation 3 of its Surevision cameras, claiming improved performance in both super low light and WDR performance.
We bought...
TVI 4.0 Doubles HD Analog Bandwidth
on Mar 05, 2017
HD analog's move up market continues.
Starting a few years ago at just 720p, HD analog is now poised for 4K and beyond.
Techpoint, the company...
Arecont Vision MicroDome Duo Tested
on Feb 14, 2017
Arecont Vision is back with another multi-head camera, this time thinking smaller with the MicroDome Duo, a two-imager model, with the tagline...
Arecont Lowest Favorability Results
on Jan 25, 2017
Given Arecont is 3 time defending integrator choice for worst camera manufacturer, it should be little surprise they had the lowest score in the...
Avigilon Pro 4K Camera Tested
on Jan 03, 2017
Avigilon is best known for their large sensor, high megapixel cameras. But with new offerings from Sony and soon Axis, the questions is how well...
Most Recent Industry Reports
Importance of Sales To Integrators - Statistics
on Jun 23, 2017
One of the top trends in the industry over the past few years has been the rise of across-the-board sales (e.g.: Hikvision Sales, Dahua Sale,...
Deep Learning Surveillance Startups Deep Problem
on Jun 23, 2017
The undeniably good news for the video surveillance market is that we are seeing the rise of more startups than in many years.
The cause of this...
Avigilon Announces RADAR-Based Presence Detector
on Jun 22, 2017
RADAR is gaining momentum within physical security. Two months after Axis announced a network radar detector, Avigilon has announced a RADAR-Based...
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...
Manufacturers Shipping Unlicensed H.265 Products
on Jun 22, 2017
While H.265 support in video surveillance is growing, IPVM's research shows that most surveillance manufacturers are shipping H.265 products with...
Uniview Low-Cost Bullet PTZ Tested
on Jun 21, 2017
Uniview is offering a HD zoom bullet camera, the IPC742SR9-PZ30-32G, with an integrated pan / tilt positioner, for the price of a low-cost...
QSR Video Surveillance Best Practices
on Jun 21, 2017
Fast food restaurants or QSRs (quick service restaurants), are frequent victims of crime and fraud. Because they are open late, deal with cash, and...
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...
No Hack, Still Liable, Court Finds ADT
on Jun 20, 2017
Recently, ADT has been in the news for a $16 million settlement for a cyber security vulnerability class action suit.
One of the most important...
Resolver / PPM 2000 Incident Management Platform Profile
on Jun 20, 2017
You might have seen the company whose employees wear hockey jerseys at trade shows and wondered "what do they do?"
PPM 2000 has been active in...
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.
Comments (11)
Marc Pichaud
Interesting.
Just mention that some manufacturers you forgot here, offer in addition to "pre defined quality values" some Manual settings where you can enter 0 to 51 customized values...so you get "settings for dummies " or "more accurate professionnal settings"
All this impact bandwidth IF you chose VBR output. If not, the output will be stable but you'd better chose the good CBR level to stand your Fps x resolutionxQuality choices. If not, the quality/Compression will become even worst (most of the time you keep the frame rate and downgrade quality ) This is whatoften happen by night ...and dark times ...brrrr
So you first think you will get a 28 quality , but finally you get a 35 or 40 and some pixelised fps where you can not identify your target... oups
Create New Topic
Jason Clement
Another great test, very informative.
Create New Topic
Marc Pichaud
John it would be very intersting to do a survey on who is using VBR or CBR. are you sure VBR will win in North America ? and worldwide ?
Most guys I know put CBR.. VBR +Cap is close to CBR but even worst if the limit is too low because hyper compressing before limitA part of Axis other vendors propose Fixed Quality, but most without a Cap, so it's seen as too risky for your storage, especially by Night.
Last survey with 60% VBR is strange .... next survey should ask also which brands are deployed...
Create New Topic
Rukmini Wilson
Derek, truly a commendable addition to the IPVM canon!
Thanks for the quiz, and here's a couple questions for you in return:
How was the Q measured, what tools, what method (mean average)?
Do you have a high confidence level in these numbers?
Mainly the section on Compression Impact on Bandwidth, arguably the most critical section, seems to present more questions than it answers.
I understand and acknowledge your disclaimer regarding the dangers of generalizing the data, but even granting that, there are some wildly divergent data points that should be explained if at all possible.
Take the Sony and the Samsung, witb the Samsung stream only getting slightly smaller with a q change of 6 where Sony gets almost 4x as small? These cameras are roughly equivalent hardware wise at least, so what is really going on? Like the frame rate changing? Or the profile?
More data would be helpful here to identify anomalies, but strangely half the cameras are missing from this chart without any explanation, and the ones we have left are divided between "Sony" behavior and "Samsung" behavior.
Any thoughts welcome.
Create New Topic
Rukmini Wilson
Thanks for the quick response Derek!
"Sony" behavior is: cameras which show dramatic (4X, 3X) reduction in bandwidth from q of 28 to 22
"Samsung" behavior is : cameras which show pathetic (1.2X, 1.6X) reduction in bandwidth from q of 28 to 22
The are two "Sony" types are the Hika and the Sony itself. The two "Samsung" types are the Dahua and the Samsung itself.
Note: These 4 cameras scored 3x,3x,5x.3x on the reduction from 34 to 28 so for the next set to be wildly divergent is worthy of an explanation. Even though the Sony and the Samsung are roughly equiv cameras hardware wise, to simpify the analysis lets just talk about the Sony by itself for a moment. On the first q setting of 34pass it had a 5x reduction, on the second a 1.2x reduction. Thats quite a difference!
Of course it could be explained by the scene complexity somehow, but then why wouldn't the Samsung also show dramatically less gains at the lower q? Instead we see dramatically higher gains after the lowering of q!.
Remember that although the administration of q thru a particular vendor is quirky and can't be relied upon, the h.264 definition of q is very formal and has to do with combining progressively more spatial frequencies. There are of course many other parameters invlolved in the actual bandwidth savings, like macro block size, and variable q settings between I and b,p frames, but assuming a motionless scene alot of these fall away and q should dominate, one would think.
As for your "strong likelyhood that decreasing compression will increase bandwidth" I would say its only trivially true: you would have been hard pressed with any camera on any scene on any day that would show an increase in compression level causing an increase in bandwidth.
"Call it in the air, Heads I take the top-half of the chart, Tails I take the bottom. Tails it is..." :)
As far as the "plethora of variables" reason for only showing 4 cameras, goes, weren't all 8 cameras already set up at varying q levels for the Camera Compression Scales part of the test? It would seem you would just have to measure the bandwidth at that point, no?
In any event lest you misinterpret my musings as an attack, its not. I'm just trying to understand what's causing the data points to diverge. If the variance is inline with your expectations, then I will adjust mine. Thanks.
Create New Topic