Testing IP Video - Super Low Bandwidth

Author: 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.

In this report, we test a regular, open, standards based H.264 camera to determine what resolution, frame rate and quality levels are needed to fit under a 56 Kb/s constraint.

**** *****, ***** *** ****** *********, ********** ** ******** ************, where ********* ******* ********* ** *********.

******* ****, ***** **** ** ** **** ** ******* ***** live.

** * ***** ***** ** ***** ** *** ****, **** can *** ** **** *** **** **** ** **/* ** less?

* ******* ** ******* ***** '*****' *********** ************ *** ***** applications*** **** *** ********* *********** *** *********.

** **** ******, ** **** * *******, ****, ********* ***** H.264 ****** ** ********* **** **********, ***** **** *** ******* levels *** ****** ** *** ***** * ** **/* **********.

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

Key ********

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

  • *.*** ** ******* *** ** **** ********** (*******), * *** and **** *********** *** ** ******** **** * *** ****** **********, **** ******** ** *** ** ** **/* ** *** tests.
  • ******** ** ** ***** ****** ** ***** *** **/* *** that *** **** * ******, ** ****** ***** ** * fps *** ****** ***********.
  • ********** *********** **** *** ** *** **** ********** ******* ******* *******, while ********** ********* *********** ** ~**-~**% *** ****, *** ~**-**% for ****.

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

***** *********** ** * *** ****** ********** (*********** ** ** **/* ****** ***) *** ** **** to ****** **** ***** ***** ******** ******* *** ******, ** the **** ** ********** *** ***** ****. *********** ** ***, QVGA, ** ***** *** ********** ** ** *** ***** ****** ** **** ** ****** ***** via **** * *** ********* **********. ************, ***** ****** ********* bitrate ** ** **** ** ***% ** *** *****, ******** should ** ******* ** ******* *** **** ** ******* *** drop.

***********

***** ** **** *****, ** ******** ********* ******* **** *** *************** ***** 10, *, *** * ****** *** ******, *** *********** ****** of *** *** ***. ** *** *** ****** ** ** view * ***** ****, **** *** ******* ******* ******* *** *****. The ***** ** **** *** ******* ** *********** *****:

**** *** ******* ******** ** *** ***** ** ****, ** cannot *** ***** ******* **** *** ******* ** *** **** *****, *** we *** *** * ******* **** ** ******** *** ********. The **** *** **** ** **** ***** **** *** ****** was **** ~**% ** ****.

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

*** ****** *********** *** ******* ** ** **/* (***** *.** ******). *** highest ******* ***** ****/*********** *********** ** *** ***** **** *** *** ****** this ********* *** * *** ** ***, ********* ***** ** Kb/s. ***** ** *** ***** ** *** ******* ****** ******* the *****.

*** ****** ************* **** * *** **** ** ** **/* was ******** ***** **** **********, *.***, **** *********** ** * ***.

** * ******-****** ******* *** ******* *** ****** *** ***** ********, we ******** ** **/*, ***** *** *** ****** *** ** QVGA resolution, *.***, **** *********** ** ** ***.

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

**** *** *** ******** ********* ************ ***** **** *******. ****** how ***** **** ********** **** ******, ***** **** ** *** **** tests ***. ** *** ******* *** * ~** ********** ******* 720p ********** *** **** ** **** ********** **** ** *** ********* scenes ******.

***********

** *** **** **** ***** *** **** ***** ***** ******** version *.**.**.

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

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 on Bandwidth

Dahua Dual Imager Dome Camera Tested (HDBW4231FN-E2-M) on Nov 07, 2018
Dahua has introduced a dual-imager dome model, the HDBW4231FN-E2-M, with two independently positionable sensors including integrated IR, not found...
Winter 2019 IP Networking Course on Nov 05, 2018
This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance professionals.  Lots of network training exists but none of it...
Cloud Video Storage Usage 2018 on Oct 31, 2018
Storing email and documents in the cloud have long been common, with on-site email or file servers increasingly eliminated. However, what about...
Video Quality / Compression Tutorial on Oct 17, 2018
While CODECs, like H.264, H.265, and MJPEG, get a lot of attention, a camera's 'quality' or compression setting has a big impact on overall...
Last Chance - October 2018 Camera Course on Oct 04, 2018
Today is the last day to register for the October 2018 Camera Course, register now. This is the only independent surveillance camera course,...
Axis 4K vs. 5MP Camera Shootout (Q3518-LVE + Q3517-LVE) on Oct 04, 2018
Axis has released the 4K counterpart to their 5MP Q3517-LVE (see our test). Axis claims of both these cameras: Simply put, AXIS Q3518(17)-LVE...
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...
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...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Ideal SecuriTest IP Vs Unbranded IP Camera Install Tools on Nov 21, 2018
In our recent IP camera installation tool shootout, multiple members questioned the Ideal SecuriTest IP's features compared to low-cost unbranded...
Intel Neural Compute Stick 2 / Movidius AI Test on Nov 21, 2018
AI is a major trend in video surveillance with manufacturers paying significant attention to Intel's Movidius Myriad chips. Indeed, Avigilon has...
Openpath Access Control Tested on Nov 20, 2018
Big investment in access startups is uncommon, but Openpath has recently attracted $20 million doing just that. The company has limited security...
No GDPR Penalties For UK Swann 'Spying Hack' on Nov 20, 2018
The UK’s data protection agency has closed its investigation into Infinova-owned Swann Security UK, the ICO confirmed to IPVM, deciding to take “no...
Milestone Disrupts Milestone With Arcules on Nov 19, 2018
Milestone is now competing against... Milestone's own spinout Arcules. New IPVM testing shows that Arcules has incorporated a substantial amount...
Pressure Mounts Against Dahua and Hikvision Xinjiang Business on Nov 19, 2018
Pressure is mounting against Hikvision, Dahua, and other companies operating in Xinjiang as an international outcry brews against the Chinese...
Arcules Cloud VMS Tested on Nov 19, 2018
Arcules is a big bet, or as they describe themselves a 'bold company', spun out and backed by Milestone and Canon.  But how good is Arcules cloud...
'Sticker' Surveillance Camera Developed (CSEM Witness) on Nov 16, 2018
The Swiss Center for Electronics and Microtechnology (CSEM) has announced what it calls the: world’s first fully autonomous camera that can be...
ISC East 2018 Mini-Show Final Report on Nov 16, 2018
This is our second (updated) and final show report from ISC East. ISC East, by its own admission, is not a national or international show, billed...
Facial Detection Tested on Nov 16, 2018
Facial detection and recognition are increasingly offered by video surveillance manufacturers. Facial detection detects faces in an image/video...

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