Test: H.264 I vs P Frame Impact

Author: Ethan Ace, Published on Oct 02, 2013

Codecs like H.264 reduce bandwidth by only sending full frames every so often, mixing them with partial frames only capturing changes in between the full ones. They are called 'I' frames because they are the initial / full frames, followed by 'P', or predictive frames.*

Note: if you are not familiar with codecs, please read our Surveillance CODEC Guide before continuing.

I Frame Questions

Since I frames require much more bandwidth than P frames (frequently 10 or 20x more), some will argue that reducing the rate of I frames will reduce overall bandwidth significantly. For instance, instead of having an I frame each second, reduce it to 1 every 5 seconds.

On the other hand, some will argue that reducing I frames can result in quality problems because it can be harder for the processor to continue to faithfully update and represent the image if it has changed significantly since the last I frame.

We seek to answer these two questions:

  • How much bandwidth savings can you achieve by reducing the I frame interval?
  • How much quality degradation can occur by reducing the I frame interval?

The Tests Conducted

In order to answer these questions, we used five 720p cameras at various price points and performance levels:

  • Avigilon H3 1MP
  • Axis M1114
  • Axis Q1604
  • Bosch NBN-733V
  • Dahua HF3101

We aimed these cameras at a toy train set to create consistent motion, and varied I-frame levels from a default of one per second to as high as five and as low as one every four seconds.

*Some versions of H.264 also support 'B' or bidirectionally predictive frames, but these are less common in surveillance cameras and therefore excluded from this study.

****** **** *.*** ****** ********* ** **** ******* **** ****** every ** *****, ****** **** **** ******* ****** **** ********* changes ** ******* *** **** ****. **** *** ****** '*' frames ******* **** *** *** *******/ **** ******, ******** ** '*', ** ****************.*

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

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

***** * ****** ******* **** **** ********* **** * ****** (frequently ** ** *** ****), **** **** ***** **** ******** the **** ** * ****** **** ****** ******* ********* *************. For ********, ******* ** ****** ** * ***** **** ******, reduce ** ** * ***** * *******.

** *** ***** ****, **** **** ***** **** ******** * frames *** ****** ** ******* ******** ******* ** *** ** harder *** *** ********* ** ******** ** ********** ****** *** represent *** ***** ** ** *** ******* ************* ***** *** last * *****.

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

  • *** **** ********* ******* *** *** ******* ** ******** *** I ***** ********?
  • *** **** ******* *********** *** ***** ** ******** *** * frame ********?

The ***** *********

** ***** ** ****** ***** *********, ** **** **** **** cameras ** ******* ***** ****** *** *********** ******:

  • ******** ** ***
  • **** *****
  • **** *****
  • ***** ***-****
  • ***** ******

** ***** ***** ******* ** * *** ***** *** ** create ********** ******, *** ****** *-***** ****** **** * ******* of *** *** ****** ** ** **** ** **** *** as *** ** *** ***** **** *******.

***** ******** ** *.*** **** ******* '*' ** *************** ********** frames, *** ***** *** **** ****** ** ************ ******* *** therefore ******** **** **** *****.

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

Key ********

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

  • ********** *-***** ********* ******* ** ******* ***** ******* ***********, *** a ***** ******** ** ********* ***********. ********* ** **-**% **** common **** ******** *-****** **** * ** * *** ******, while ********* ** **-**% **** ******** **** ****** **** * to *.
  • ********** *** ****** ** *-****** *** ****** ******* ** * significant ********* ** ***** ********** ****** *******, *** * **** ***** **** ** *********. ****** **** one *-***** *** ****** ** *** ***** *** ******* ********* bandwidth ** *-**%. **-**% ********** **** **** **** ******** *-****** to *** ***** **** *******.
  • ***** ********* ********* ********* ** *-***** ******** *********, *** **** versa, *** ***** ****** ** **** ****** ****** ****** ************* and ****** **** *** **** ************. 
  • **** ******'* *-***** **** ******** ********** ********** ** *-***** ********.
  • *** ***** ***-**** *** *** **** ****** ** **** **** that *** *** ******** ********* **** *** ****** ** *-******. Instead, *** ****** *********************, ******* *** ****** **** ********. *******, ******** *** ****** of *-****** ******** ** ********* ********** ******* ** ***** *******.
  • *** ***** ****** *** *** ***** *** **** **** *** I-frame *** ******, ****** ****** ***** **** ********.

Image ******* ******

** **** *****, ** **** *-***** ********'* ****** ** ***** quality *** ** ******* ******* *************. ********* ****** *******:

  • * *-***** *** ******
  • *.* *-****** *** ******
  • * *-****** *** ******
  • * *-***** ***** * *******
  • * *-***** ***** * *******

***** ****** **** *** ******* ********* ** ***** ******* ** the ****** ** *-****** ** *******, ** **** ** *** minimal ***** **** **********.

Bandwidth ****** 

**** ********** *** **** ******* * ******, ********* ******** ****** all *******, *** ********, ** ***** ** **** *****:

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

** ********, ********** *** ****** ** * ****** ** **** there **** ******** **** ** * ******, ************* ********* *********:

 

**** ***** ***** *** *********** ** ********* **** ********** **** one *-***** *** ****** ** *.* *** *. ***** **** Dahua *** *** ***** *** ****** *****, ** *** ******** from ***** *****. ****, *** *** ***** ***** *****'* *********/*********** performance.

P-frame *********/****

*** ****** *****, ***** *************, *********** *** ******:

  • *****, **** *** ********** ******** ** *-****** ** **** ***** (moving **** **** ** *****). *-****** *** ***** ** *** taller **** *****, ***** *-****** *** *****/***.
  • ******, *** *-***** **** ** **** ****** ******* ********** ********** regardless ** *-***** ********. **** *** **** ** **** *** relatively *** ****** ***** ****, *** ** * **** ****** scene ******* **** * ***** *****.

Bosch ***-*** *********** 

****** *** ***** ******* ** *** ****, *** ***-**** *** not ******** ********* **** *-***** ******** *** *********, ******* ******* approximately ****** ****** * **/*. ******** **** ****** ** * stream ********, ** ********** **** *** ****** *********** *** *** additional *-****** ************ ************. ******* ************ *** ** *******:

  • * *-***** *** ******: ~** 
  • *.* *-****** *** ******: ~**
  • * *-****** *** ******: ~**

**** **** ************ ******** ********* **** ****** **** *** *-***** per ****** ** *** ***** *** ** **** *******, ****** around **.

Comments (14)

"Decreasing the number of I-frames per second results in a significant reduction in image quality for moving objects, but a very small gain in bandwidth"

Not sure I understand why image quality would degrade depending on the interval of I-Frames ? As each P frame is encoding the difference from the last P or I frame, why does reducing the I-Frames reduce image quality ? Are you seeing this consistent across all cameras ? Are you also seeing it consistent across Variable Bitrate settings and Constant Bitrate settings ?

P frames are naturally lower quality than I frames since they're using other frames as reference, as opposed to being a full capture as I frames are. It creates the artifacts you see behind moving objects, since the prediction of what is changed in each P frame (the moving object(s)) is imperfect. So in time you'll see the artifact trail grow longer and longer.

It is consistent across all cameras, as well as VBR and CBR. Using VBR, bandwidth will increase and decrease as you raise and lower I frame frequency. Using CBR, the camera should be able to use a slightly lower quantization level if you reduce I frames, but you'll still get artifacts from P frames.

Bear with me here, just trying to get my head straight ;) So the artifacts will build up over the span of the GOP because each P frame is 'estimating' what changed from the I Frame. The 'estimation' is then encoded/compressed which in itself also introduces artifacts. ??

That is correct. So if you have a car moving through a scene, for example, the encoder will see the car as a change. So it keeps the static parts of the background from the previous frame, and transmits only the changed areas (the car, as well as where the car used to be, which is now empty space). This will never be perfect, because objects are in motion. And since successive P frames reference the previous P frame for changes, it gets steadily worse until the next I frame is sent, which you can see as a "clearing" in the video.

Got it. Never really stopped and thought about this thoroughly before. All our video is typically H264 30fps with I-Frames set at 1 sec intervals.

1 second I frame intervals is common for VMS systems, so typically one would not see a quality problem. However, some systems or users try to 'cheat' with longer I frame intervals.

Nice report but please try to establish early in the report what frame rate is being used when making the comparisons. After reading the report it seems 15FPS was used for these measurements?

15 FPS was used because it allowed for the most flexible configuration of higher/lower I frame intervals. I'll add a note about framerate, though, thanks.

Thanks. It just helps knowing all the parameters up front when reading the numbers.

What about testing the B-frames influence on video quality and bandwidth?

This should be interesting a well.

Interesting report, Ethan. Did you consider CPU usage in your experiment? I'm wondering how much influence (in terms of CPU usage %) increasing and reducing the I-frame interval would have.

We didn't initially consider it. But looking at clips now in VLC, it's marginal at best. The difference between 1 I-frame per second and 5, for example, is one percent CPU usage, at most. Reducing from 1 per second to 1 every 4 seconds decreases it by one at most. Those are the most extreme examples, and the effects are practically negligible.

Interesting analysis.

I often have to use low-bandwidth connections to remote cameras - T1, or approx. 1.5Mb symetrical - which is the typical business data connection in North America. xDSL is usually worse, as it's the upstream that matters for remote monitoring. And, most often these links are also used during business hours for other mission-critical applications, so you can't use all the bandwidth - assume 750Kbs is all you have. Now, try to monitor a couple/three 1MP cameras.

I did a lot of 'experimenting' with compression and frame rates, and discovered not all VMS software packages allow for user selection of the key frame refresh interval (KFRI) or (I-frame interval, or
GOV rate, or whatever the camera manufacturer calls it). In particular, Milestone's non-Enterprise solutions fix the KFRI at a minimum of 1 frame per second. So, at low frame rates - say, 1 FPS - well, that's JPEG, one full I-frame per second, and a lot of data for each image. Doing the math, it's clear that several 1MP images won't fit in 750Kbs!

Other VMS solutions (Video Insight, Exacq, for example) do indeed keep the camera settings (if available) intact in the video steam connected. I've used Axis' 'default' GOV rate of 32 (1 I-frame per 32 frames, as I understand it) at 1 FPS and got quite acceptable results, for scenes with little active motion - an occasional vehicle moving through,for example. The artifacting is all in the 'static' parts of the image, so the object of interest - the moving vehicle - is pretty well covered in the P-frame, even at 1 FPS. In fact, I never had a customer 'complain' about the artifacting, and it appears to be 'self-annealing' in subsequent P-frames. I was able to get 2-3 1MP cameras at 1 FPS each in an average of 150-175Kbs for static images, and jumping to 300-400Kbs if a lot of motion occured. Pretty incredible - usable HD video over a T1. Nighttime was typically twice the bandwidth (video noise), but other business services were not running, so I could hit the 'hard stops' of bandwidth utilization, and use the entire 1.5Mbs.

Anyway, I went to local storage for other reasons also impacted by the bandwidth (local and remote simultaneous viewing/stream generation) which generated a different set of problems for a low bandwidth connections, (and cost more) but were the best compromise in my instance.

Take-away here is make sure that the VMS is actually pulling streams at the KFRI (I-frame ratio) you think it is....

There is a lot of good information here that could be applied when testing a camera set up. I found it interesting that the Bosch NBN-733V bandwidth did not increase with the number of I frames, but adjusted the quantization. I've never worked with a Bosch camera, but I wonder if there are other cameras that exhibit this same behavior.

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

October 2018 Camera Course on Sep 13, 2018
Today is the last day to save $50 on the October 2018 Camera Course, register now. This is the only independent surveillance camera course,...
SNMP / Network Monitoring For Surveillance 2018 on Aug 21, 2018
Surveillance systems typically rely on the the VMS to report issues, but this most often just means knowing a camera is "down" with no warning or...
Eagle Eye Networks Cloud VMS Tested on Jul 26, 2018
Eagle Eye has become one of the most significant players in the industry in the past few years: Eagle Eye's Owner Acquired Brivo Eagle Eye...
July 2018 IP Networking Course on Jul 12, 2018
Registration is closed. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance professionals.  Lots of network training...
Powerline Networking For Video Surveillance Advocated By Comtrend on Jun 08, 2018
Powerline networking, using existing electrical wiring, has been around for many years. Indeed, over the years, some video surveillance providers...
H.265 / HEVC Codec Tutorial on Jun 07, 2018
H.265 support has improved significantly in 2018, with H.265 camera/VMS compatibility increased compared to only a year ago, and more manufacturers...
VMS Server Sizing on May 25, 2018
Specifying the right sized PC/server for VMS software is one of the most important yet difficult decisions in IP video surveillance. In the past...
Axis 12MP Stereographic Camera Tested (M3058-LVE) on May 10, 2018
Axis has released the M3058-PLVE, a 12MP sensor, stereographic panoramic camera and Axis' first with integrated IR claiming images "sharp to the...
IP Network Hardware for Surveillance Guide on May 02, 2018
Video surveillance systems depend on IP networking equipment. In this guide, we explain the key pieces of equipment and features, explaining where...
Hikvision DarkfighterX Vs Darkfighter PTZ Tested on Apr 26, 2018
Hikvision has focused on improving low-light performance for PTZs, an area that has traditionally been a problem, even more so than fixed cameras,...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Avigilon Announces AI-Powered H5 Camera Development on Sep 19, 2018
Avigilon will be showcasing "next-generation AI" at next week's ASIS GSX. In an atypical move, the company is not actually releasing these...
Favorite Request-to-Exit (RTE) Manufacturers 2018 on Sep 19, 2018
Request To Exit devices like motion sensors and lock releasing push-buttons are a part of almost every access install, but who makes the equipment...
25% China Tariffs Finalized For 2019, 10% Start Now, Includes Select Video Surveillance on Sep 18, 2018
A surprise move: In July, when the most recent tariff round was first announced, the tariffs were only scheduled for 10%. However, now, the US...
Central Stations Face Off Against NFPA On Fire Monitoring on Sep 18, 2018
Central stations are facing off against the NFPA over what they call anti-competitive language in NFPA 72, the standard that covers fire alarms....
Chinese Government Praises Hikvision Following Xi Jinping on Sep 17, 2018
The Chinese government council responsible for managing China's state-owned companies praised Hikvision’s obedience to China’s authoritarian leader...
Amazon Ring Spotlight Cam Tested on Sep 17, 2018
Amazon's Ring has released their latest camera entry, the Spotlight Cam, which we bought and tested in our Consumer IP Camera Analytics...
European Mega Security Firm Verisure Pushing Security Fog on Sep 17, 2018
The European mega security firm Verisure (Securitas Direct), with a reported 2 million customers, is pushing security fog, as shown in this BBC...
IP Camera Cable Labeling Guide on Sep 14, 2018
Labeling cables can save a lot of money and headaches. While it is easy to overlook, taking time to label runs during installation significantly...
Favorite Intercom Manufacturers 2018 on Sep 14, 2018
Intercoms are certainly increasing in popularity, driven by the integration of video and IP networking. But who is the favorite? On the one side,...

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