Testing IP Video - Super Low Bandwidth

By: Derek Ward, Published on Aug 08, 2014

Even today, there are remote locations, especially in security applications, where extremely limited bandwidth is available.

Despite that, users want to be able to monitor video live.

In a world where HD video is the norm, what can you do when you only have 56 Kb/s or less?

A handful of vendors claim 'magic' compression technologies for these applications but they are typically proprietary and expensive.

**** *****, ***** *** remote *********, ********** ** security ************, ***** ********* limited ********* ** *********.

******* ****, ***** **** to ** **** ** monitor ***** ****.

** * ***** ***** HD ***** ** *** norm, **** *** *** do **** *** **** have ** **/* ** less?

* ******* ** ******* claim '*****' *********** ************ for ***** *************** **** *** ********* proprietary *** *********.

** **** ******, ** test * *******, ****, standards ***** *.*** ****** to ********* **** **********, frame **** *** ******* levels *** ****** ** fit ***** * ** Kb/s **********.

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

Key ********

**** *** *** *** findings **** **** ****:

  • *.*** ** ******* *** to **** ********** (*******), 5 *** *** **** compression *** ** ******** **** a *** ****** **********, **** ******** ** low ** ** **/* in *** *****.
  • ******** ** ** ***** needed ** ***** *** Kb/s *** **** *** with * ******, ** motion ***** ** * fps *** ****** ***********.
  • ********** *********** **** *** ** Q32 **** ********** ******* visible *******, ***** ********** bandwidth *********** ** ~**-~**% for ****, *** ~**-**% for ****.

***************

***** *********** ** * 56K ****** ********** (*********** ** ** Kb/s ****** ***) *** be **** ** ****** live ***** ***** ******** cameras *** ******, ** the **** ** ********** and ***** ****. *********** of ***, ****, ** lower *** ********** ** ** *** ***** should ** **** ** stream ***** *** **** a *** ********* **********. Additionally, ***** ****** ********* bitrate ** ** **** as ***% ** *** tests, ******** ****** ** allowed ** ******* *** this ** ******* *** drop.

***********

***** ** **** *****, ** measured ********* ******* **** and QVGAresolutions ***** **, *, and * ****** *** second, *** *********** ****** of *** *** ***. We *** *** ****** up ** **** * blank wall, **** *** ******* walking ******* *** *****. The ***** ** **** for ******* ** *********** below:

**** *** ******* ******** in *** ***** ** view, ** ****** *** clear details **** *** ******* in *** **** *****, *** we *** *** * general **** ** ******** and ********. *** **** bit **** ** **** scene **** *** ****** was **** ~**% ** 720p.

********** *****

*** ****** *********** *** ******* ** 48 **/* (***** *.** modems). *** ******* ******* frame rate/compression combination ** *** ***** that *** *** ****** this ********* *** * FPS ** ***, ********* about ** **/*. ***** is *** ***** ** our ******* ****** ******* the *****.

*** ****** ************* **** a *** **** ** 19 **/* *** ******** using **** **********, *.***, **** compression ** * ***.

** * ******-****** ******* *** highest *** ****** *** rates ********, ** ******** 32 **/*, ***** *** the ****** *** ** QVGA resolution, *.***, **** *********** at ** ***.

Bandwidth ************

**** *** *** ******** bandwidth ************ ***** **** testing. ****** *** ***** QVGA resolution **** ******, ***** none ** *** **** tests ***. ** *** clearly *** * ~** difference ******* **** ********** and **** ** **** ********** many ** *** ********* scenes ******.

***********

** *** **** **** using *** **** ***** using ******** ******* *.**.**.

*********** ******* *.*.*.***** *** ****.

Comments (11)

Good job, Derek. You just made a lot of AOL dialup users happy. :)

AOL Still Has 2.4 Million Paying Subscribers

So glad to see such good lighting conditions and high contrast between foreground / background. I bet that made the compressor super happy. :) :) :)

TeleEye do it much better, using narrow bandwidth , error correction,...they use vector quantisation not transform or wavelet based codec...

Technical info about their compression here.

I try SMACM, HD SMACM, H264, MPEG and SMAC M is the best for streaming using narrow bandwidth.

When is that technical paper from?

The codecs mentioned (like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2) point to it being 10 years old.

How do you know it would be much better? Did you test it head to head against a modern H.264 implementation? Did you validate that TeleEye could deliver lower bandwidth but with the same quality?

I am in CCTv since 1989...

Yes I try H264, compared with SMAC-M
Yes SMAC M is old but is better than H264
Last few years TeleEye works with HD SMAC-M ( they released their first HD IP cameras almost 4-5 years ago)
Many suppliers offers dual or triple codecs but do not tell the whole story: user can chose what codec but not in the same time. In SMAC M you can use 4 different bitrates in te same time
Also big compression give great picture
I do not understand that you did not try TeleEye yet...It is more expencive than H264 but is worth each cent.
I remembet that using SMAC compression in their TeleEye Pro systems ( about 1994. ) you can achieve about 10 -12 fps using 33600 bps only upload speed at CIF

Super low bandwidth applications are a niche, so there is not a lot of interest overall.

TeleEye is not a well known company so there is not a lot of interest in them.

Plus its proprietary and, as you acknowledge, expensive.

Finally, lots of people claim to have super low bandwidth codecs but it turns out they are just lowering quality level / increasing compression.

All of this makes me skeptical and not interested in testing this.

Hi Sr?an,

Yes I try H264, compared with SMAC-M

Care to post your detailed findings for us somewhere on the web? I don't mean TeleEye's findings. Their findings here appears to compare HD SMAC-M to MPEG-4 (Not MPEG-4 Part 10 or AVC) rather than H.264.

I am always open to new information so for the sake of learning, please provide more details.

Yes SMAC M is old but is better than H264

Based on compression alone? I will refer you to my thoughts on this following your statement below.

Many suppliers offers dual or triple codecs but do not tell the whole story: user can chose what codec but not in the same time. In SMAC M you can use 4 different bitrates in te same time

  • I know of a Tier 2 to Tier 1 product that offers 4 streams all using different codecs and frame rates. Some of their products might even be considered Tier 3 and even these inexpensive cameras offer 3 simultaneous streams.
  • Secondly, unless all VMSes supported HD SMAC-M your point is moot to the vast majority out there that use the well-known VMSes for very good reason I.E recording, user, analytic, open & other features.
  • H.264 is a direct successor to H.263 and it is leading to H.265 developed by the "ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) as ISO/IEC 23008-2 MPEG-H Part 2 and ITU-T H.265". Theforefore, we can expect the industry to move in this direction.
  • Given the above, development will be quicker and much more widely supported and adopted than any proprietary encoding method unless such method is supported by say Google - such as WebM (which at this point still trails H.264 as we speak, but WebM is also developed to be used on the web for HTML 5 primarily). Even this has not taken off completely just yet.

With that said, there are some benefits to proprietary codecs and I do not argue that. To give you an example: Geutebrück uses MPEG4CCTV and H264CCTV which are different iterations of the technologies they are based on. Still, the VMS supports normal MPEG-4 and H.264.

The downside is their proprietary technology is only natively available on their cameras unless a transcoder is used.

The upside is that changes in pictures are not referenced to the I-Frame but rather the previous B-Frame. This is not a major advantage, but it helps in the event of a dropped connection or an unstable connection. Normal encoding will reference as far back as to the last I-Frame with all subsequent changed scenery lost.

Still, the technology can only be used on Geutebrück thus making it less relevant.*

I'd venture to say future implementations of encoding mechanisms will resolve most issues exposed by proprietary encoding methods anyway.

---

* - Although the VMS allows pulling RTSP from the Geutebrück platform so there is a minor exception. The feature is mostly used for AD-HOC requirements.

All this paper says is that SMACM is an encoder system that outputs multiple video streams and different bit rates, and that (somewhere in there--at all bit rates?) SMACM uses a vector quantization based codec.

Any codec can be configured to output video at lower bit rates. The question is which one might provide the best compression.

Vector quantization enjoyed some popularity 10-20 years ago becuase it made the decoder's job much easier at a time when CPU resources for decode were precious. But since clients have become more powerful the VQ algorithms have fallen off in favor of more efficient encoding in MPEG et. al.

Also, being a proprietary system is going to limit the audience of this kind of technology--especially among the IPVM crowd.

At a previous job I had a customer with the same requirement but it was for a PTZ camera on a remote highway and they needed an encoder / decoder pair to transmit the video over the 56k line. I could compress the video but the latency was in the range of 5-10 seconds and made it all but impossible to move the PTZ.

Did you measure latency in this test? Does the user need live video or was it good enough?

I posted without my name to protect the innocent :-)

Latency is a good point. I don't think latency is likely an issue in this particular testing. But in an end-to-end system buffering can sometimes help achieve stable streaming at lower bandwidths by accommodating variability in the bit rate of the communications channel. Since streaming has a 'real time' requirement (that bits arrive at the decoder at a rate at least as fast as the video is encoded at) the illusion of a greater encoded bit rate can be achieved if buffering is used to accumulate video when the channel has a higher bit rate and drain slightly when the bit rate is low. But buffering of course introduces latency that is less desireable in the case of something like PTZ.

We just done some tests with a well known VMS that has dual streaming so we could setup 1.) high quality for recording and 2.) lower quality for remote vieving. These streams can also be allocated bandwidth, Frame rate and Resolution and compression limits in the VMS on the selected CODEC. You can also click the playback button and digitally zoom into the HQ image.

Additional this software has the function to down sample frame rate and quality to client, so I would think this is a 3rd quality stream from the system. The system also has a 4th stream from a mobile server on the recorder for mobile viewing.

I believe similar to Avigilon, this is Teleeye's way of marketing something unique, that when pulled apart is not really that unique. In actual fact there are many products that have similar features and could most probably achieve the same desired end result for the customer without having to buy preprietary cameras.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,307 reports, 842 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now

Related Reports

Video Surveillance Cameras 101 on Feb 25, 2020
Cameras come in many shapes, sizes and specifications. This 101 examines the basics of cameras and features used in 2020. In this report, we...
Glossary / Acronyms for Video Surveillance on Feb 10, 2020
This directory provides definitions and explanations for over 70 common video surveillance industry terms, including links to related IPVM...
Bandwidth Fundamentals For Video Surveillance on Jan 13, 2020
Bandwidth is the most fundamental element of computer networking for video surveillance systems. Because video surveillance can consume an immense...
IPVM Opens 12,000 Sqft Testing Facility on Dec 16, 2019
IPVM is proud to announce the opening of the world's first video surveillance testing facility that will allow us to significantly expand our...
Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) Guide on Oct 01, 2019
Understanding wide dynamic range (WDR) is critical to capturing high quality images in demanding conditions. However, with no real standards, any...
False Verkada 'Unrivaled' Low Light Performance Claim Removed on Jun 12, 2019
Verkada falsely claimed that it delivered 'UNRIVALED LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE' until IPVM questioned. In fact, Verkada's low light performance is...
Smart CODEC Usage Statistics 2019 on Jun 03, 2019
Smart codecs are now nearly a standard feature in IP cameras, but our statistics show integrator adoption has not increased at the same rate. In...
Verkada Video Quality Problems Tested on May 23, 2019
Verkada suffers from numerous video quality problems, not found in commercial IP cameras, new IPVM testing of Verkada vs Axis and Hikvision...
Average Frame Rate Video Surveillance 2019 on May 23, 2019
What is the average frame rated used in video surveillance systems? In IPVM's 2011 statistics, the average was 6-8fps increasing to ~10fps in...
H.265 Usage Statistics on Apr 19, 2019
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...

Most Recent Industry Reports

JCI / Tyco Security Products Layoffs on Jun 05, 2020
Johnson Controls / Tyco Security Products has confirmed COVID-19 related layoffs, expanding upon the April coronavirus cuts the company previously...
EyePark Presents Mobile Driver Authentication on Jun 05, 2020
EyePark presented its long-range QR code parking verification platform at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from EyePark...
Bleenco "Under The Tongue" Temperature Detection Examined on Jun 05, 2020
"Say aah", says Bleenco, a PPE detection video analytics company, offering a different method for measuring body temperature with a thermal...
Hikvision and Uniview Entry Level Thermal Handheld Cameras Tested on Jun 05, 2020
While most screening systems cost $10,000 or more, manufacturers such as Hikvision and Uniview have now released handheld models for $1,000 or...
Sequr Presents HID based Cloud Access Control on Jun 04, 2020
Sequr presented HID based Cloud Access Control at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Sequr...
VergeSense Presents People Tracking Sensor on Jun 04, 2020
VergeSense presented its people tracking sensor and social distancing insights at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from...
FLIR A Series Temperature Screening Cameras Tested on Jun 04, 2020
FLIR is one of the biggest names in thermal and one of the most conservative. While rivals have marketed fever detection, FLIR has stuck to EST...
"Fever Camera" Show On-Demand Watch Now on Jun 03, 2020
IPVM has successfully completed the world's first "Fever Camera" show. Recordings from both days are posted at the end of this report for on-demand...
Cobalt Robotics Presents Indoor Security and Access Robots on Jun 03, 2020
Cobalt Robotics presented indoor security robots at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Cobalt...
Dahua Sues Ex-North American President, Says Legal Typo on Jun 03, 2020
Dahua's former North American President Frank Zhang claims he is owed almost $11 million but Dahua counter claims it is just a "scrivener's error",...