H264. Not seeing it.

Comment

Comment by Ascenendent Technology Group on May 9, 2010 at 1:07am

H.264 is vastly superior to Mpeg 4 and Jpeg wavelet and other forms of compression in both image quality and file size.



Mpeg4 was originally designed in 1950' and was never designed for multiple high quality streaming.

2002: H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 contains a number of new features that allow it to compress video much more effectively than older standards and to provide more flexibility for application to a wide variety of network environments. In particular, some such key features include:

2007: The objective of the SVC standardization has been to enable the encoding of a high-quality video bitstream that contains one or more subset bitstreams that can themselves be decoded with a complexity and reconstruction quality similar to that achieved using the existing H.264/MPEG-4 AVC design with the same quantity of data as in the subset bitstream. The subset bitstream is derived by dropping packets from the larger bitstream.

Now not all H.264 is the same there are a number of versions and variations of both AVC and SVC.

out side of the codec or compression used there are a number of factors that determine image quality. Such as hardware or software compression DSP or ASIC as well as the setting for VBR and CBR.

H.264 is better then Mpeg 4 as it an extension and improvement upon MPeg 4 technology.

Now that said even id specs are the same on 2 DVR;s usually there performance will be completely different even if both are H.264 and support D1 resolution.

Not all DVRs and security equipment are created equal, in fact there are many options that offer varying performance much like the automobile industry. In the world of DVRs you can find the equivalent of a $10,000 Kia and a $350,000 Ferrari and everything in between. Both have 4 wheels and windshield but that where the similarities end, it’s under the hood that counts. Just like any other consumer electronic in the end you get what you pay for.

I suggest you buy a PC based DVR has they have more processing power and normally have a much smaller file size and offer more features then Standalone DVR's. I know many people buy a cheap standalone DVR, only to upgrade to a PC based in 6 months especially when they are using it to manage a store remotely. Also PC based allows you to record up to 64 cameras where a standalone will have a limit of 16.

Many people have the misconception that a PC-Based DVR is simply an off-the-shelf PC with video capture (encoder) cards, display (decoder) cards and some generic OEM software. A true DVR requires years of research and development to facilitate the seamless integration of both the hardware and software. DVRs are highly complex systems that must run 24/7, processing millions of images per day. This makes consumer-level hardware inadequate for DVRs which is why Ascendent uses custom-built PCs with performance-level hardware.

My personal favorite DVR is Ascendent X4 series: Ascendent’s Tri-Fusion Hybrid Platform allows for the creation of a true hybrid surveillance system by utilizing the advantages of Analog, Megapixel, and IP technologies for unparalleled customization and expandability. I am working on government projects and use Ascendent cameras and DVR because the offer superior performance and cost less then comparable brands like bosh, Honeywell and pelco.

The X4 also uses the latest H.264/SVC codec offer video substantially better quality,. While its file size sizes is 30% smaller than MPEG-4, 60% smaller than MPEG-2, and exponentially smaller than MJPEG.

File size is crucial to streaming because most DVR’s on the market record at real time performance (30FPS per channel) so on a 4CH is trying to send 120, 8CH 240, and a 16CH 480 images per second which requires way too much bandwidth even for the most extreme internet connections.

The smaller the files size the more images are able to be sent, and the faster they can be processed improving both FPS and speed. File size is the heart of any DVR and goes far beyond just its streaming capabilities, as it also determines the recording storage time, how much you can back up at once, how fast it renders and searches video. The file size of a DVR impacts the performance of the DVR in just about every aspect from speed to longevity and is often the most important spec of any DVR.

If you are buying a DVR and streaming is a high priority I suggest you ask for a demo and connect to the DVR to make sure it is able to stream fast enough for your needs. Most DVRs say they have remote viewing but it is often too slow and laggy to be of any use especially if it is a standalone. Some good DVR brands that I recommend are Bosch, Pelco, Honeywell and Ascendent,


http://www.ascendentgroup.com

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 20, 2009 at 3:44am

A discussion on transmission by cable (coaxial.cat5/IP/wifi/bluetooth/etc) is more suited to another topic, and should we expand the discussion to the benefits of the various cabling and signal distribution topologies and methodologies, that might be better suited to another discussion

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 20, 2009 at 3:42am

Vasu, I don't see any sense in going on with the discussion. I will tell you this --- for high security application like airport, statewide surveillance, education, casino----- there is a real need for 30fps Megappixel. Analog CCTV is going to provide this solution, and it will do it at half the price of Megapixel IP. Time alone will tell...but I will ask you to have a look at your television in the sitting room, it is the grandfather of CCTV, and now look at what is happening - look at youtube, look at US television --- HDTV, the television in your sitting room is the key to the future of Megapixel CCTV at 30fps, with no latency, pure video signla platform for analytics, not network congestion, and more..................

Comment by Vasu Garg on November 20, 2009 at 3:21am

eh That was the use of IP I am only going till wireless now... may I had not talked you about satellite connection with IP and I think even you are not fimiliar with that...

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 19, 2009 at 3:51pm

Oh Ok, now we are onto wireless !! Ok Ok....

Comment by Vasu Garg on November 19, 2009 at 3:35pm

No, You still not understanding,.. I am trying to tell you and IP is far better then analog in way of manangement, even in ananlog we have to carry out with wiring and even if a wie cut system get deads whereas on other hand in IP we can have a option of High range Ip wireless which can gi over 50 KM and just takes 30 Min. to install and even a 10 KM site or analog take 6 months to complete
Benifits of ip: -
Reliable, free from humna errors, easy to install, can cover campus of even 1000's of KM with the help of wireless, can have high users, no extra wiring requiried for users as everywhere now everbody is having a lan connection we just have to plug it and many more.... Brandon don't bring your ego in front think twice before writing again .

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 19, 2009 at 12:32pm

Look at people like Fibridge, I am not saying these are the best solutions in all cases -- I am saying they have their place, as analog has it's place, as hybrid has it's place, as Ip has it's place and as Analytics have a place.

We cannot just say - go hybrid! Ip is not a solution everywhere, and is not always the best solution for large installations, depending on the extent of distance involved. The argument is getting narrower and narrower --- from a sweeping statement about go hybrid, to refinign it down to more than 50 cameras, to wide area accessibility and so each response will take us to the one case scenario where IP may be better, and I will concede IP is better. But the reality is that "Go Hybrid" is too sweeping a statement, IP is best over 50 cameras is too sweeping a statement, Analytics can only be achieved with IP, is too sweeping a statement.......Let the surveillance objective define the Media and Equipment, let's not try to get our equipment and preferences to define the surveillance objective.

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 19, 2009 at 12:18pm

In response to my question as to what you view as the driver behind IP, you have mentioned two facts - network accessibility and video analytics and suggest these cannot be achieved with analog systems. Am i understanding your response correctly?

Comment by Brandon Joubert on November 19, 2009 at 12:08pm

Read up on Object Video - 33% global market share for analytics and a world leader, check who they are partnering with. Video Analytics is a technology - best achieved in mission critical application through customization. IP is a transmission medium, Analog is a transmission-- you surely don't mean to imply that Without IP, Analytics is impossible??

Comment by Vasu Garg on November 19, 2009 at 11:52am

1). I am talking about 1 lac not 20 ! In A huge full state surveillance a remote monitoring of 90000 to 1 lac users is required.
2). how you perform video analytics like smoke/fire detction, baggage left, illegal parking with ana analog system ?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page