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.

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

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...
Testing Bandwidth vs. Frame Rate on Jan 23, 2019
Selecting frame rate has a major impact on surveillance bandwidth and storage consumption. But with smart codecs now common and cameras more...
Bandwidth vs Low Light Shootout - Avigilon, Axis, Bosch, Dahua, Geovision, Hanwha, Hikvision, Uniview, Vivotek on Feb 08, 2019
Nighttime bandwidth spikes are a major concern in video surveillance, but do all manufacturers' cameras perform the same? Are some more consistent...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Axis Live Privacy Shield Analytics Tested on Jun 25, 2019
Privacy is becoming a bigger factor in video surveillance, driven both by increased public awareness and by GDPR. Now, Axis has released Live...
Budget Covert Cameras Tested on Nov 26, 2019
Covert cameras under $100 are widely available online but are they any good? To see how these models really work in the real world, we bought...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Hazardous & Explosion Proof Access Control Tutorial on Feb 27, 2020
Controlling access to hazardous environments requires equipment meeting specific ratings that certify they will not start fires or will not...
Motorola / Avigilon Drops ISC West on Feb 26, 2020
Motorola Solutions has pulled out of ISC West 2020 effective immediately, because of coronavirus concerns, IPVM has learned. This is done amidst...
Cancel or Not? Industry Split Over ISC West on Feb 26, 2020
The industry is split, polarized, over whether ISC West 2020 should run or be canceled. New IPVM survey results of 400+ respondents show heated...
Coronavirus Hits Sony, Bosch Says Switch on Feb 26, 2020
Sony's fall in video surveillance has been severe over the past decade. Now, they may be done. In this note, we examine Bosch's new...
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...
Favorite Video Analytic Manufacturers 2020 on Feb 25, 2020
Video analytics is now as hot as ever, driven by the excitement of advancing deep learning offers. But what are actually integrator's...
Latest London Police Facial Recognition Suffers Serious Issues on Feb 24, 2020
On February 20, IPVM visited another live face rec deployment by London police, but this time the system was thwarted by technical problems and...
Masks Cause Major Facial Recognition Problems on Feb 24, 2020
Coronavirus is spurring an increase in the use of medical masks, which new IPVM test results show cause major problems for facial recognition...
Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS on Feb 21, 2020
VMS is ending. Soon every VMS will be a VSaaS. Competitive dynamics will be redrawn. What does this mean? VMS Historically...
Video Surveillance 101 Course - Last Chance on Feb 20, 2020
This is the last chance to join IPVM's first Video Surveillance 101 course, designed to help those new to the industry to quickly understand the...