Dvr companies still using mpeg4,why?

[blake 0]

If H.264 is so much better than mpeg4,than why are professional companies still trying to push mpeg4,if we know that the customer will be happy more than happy with H.264?

[rory 0]

most of them dont do H.264 well. I use Mpeg4 instead of H.264 with Geovision DVR, less compression and higher quality.

[blake 0]

Oh okay so it's a product issue to where as their equipment doesn't "like" H.264?I thought H.264 compression combined with good cameras gave you a better picture while using less hd space?

[scorpion 0]

There are many reasons why.

 

As stated before H.264 can produce a better picture with compression, and H.264 webserver. The problem with H.264 is the same as driving a car in first gear out on the interstate at 60 mph. Some cars will blow before they get off the entrance ramp, and a customized performance car with a 4 core radiator, oil cooler, and beefed up water pump with a secondary electirc fan may go farther down the road.

 

This is the same for DVRs. High end DVRs will have better processors to handle the video. The cheaper down the scale you go the more problems you have. The cheaper chipset will heat up more. The more heat the more fans, and heatsinks will be required. If you are building a DVR for the entry level market then there is not much that can be done to keep the chipsets from burning themselves up.

 

H.264 will require some serious mass production to make it affordable, and for the designers to be able to afford survivable chipsets.

 

There are companies that are in a limited ROI, and they have to go on to the next product to make a better margin. There is so much competition in the DVR market how do you stand out? H.264! H.264! Scream it from the mountain top!

 

Once the ROI is gone then they will go on to the next "hype". They will start advertsing "such, and such" chipset that has proven to be a work horse for H.264, and then later it will be H.264V2.

 

There may be some companies who want in on the H.264 market, but they may have to clear out the inventory of MPEG4 from their warehouses before they can sell a new breed of DVRs.

 

There may be a company who has specialized in MPEG4, and has come up with alogrithms that make their product equal to, or better then H.264 without all of the difficult video processing required.

 

AVTech is trying to make the entry level H.264 DVRs, and they are going through the trials, and troubles, but they are getting there.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Guest

[blake 0]

Thanks Scorpion for better explaining things.Main reason why i ask is because like you said,many companies are screaming H.264 while others are sticking with Mpeg4.Guess if they can get great quality out of mpeg4 than that would make sense to stick with it.I need to look into those AVTech mpeg4 dvr's.

[Soundy 1]

There are many reasons why.

 

As stated before H.264 can produce a better picture with compression, and H.264 webserver. The problem with H.264 is the same as driving a car in first gear out on the interstate at 60 mph. Some cars will blow before they get off the entrance ramp, and a customized performance car with a 4 core radiator, oil cooler, and beefed up water pump with a secondary electirc fan may go farther down the road.

 

Interesting analogy

 

The part Scorpion hasn't stated so clearly, is that H.264 requires substantial processing power compared to MPEG4... which either requires more powerful hardware, or a bunch of work-arounds to make the cheaper hardware handle it, which can create other problems.

 

There may be a company who has specialized in MPEG4, and has come up with alogrithms that make their product equal to, or better then H.264 without all of the difficult video processing required.

 

Indeed. When I asked about support for H.264 cameras (Arecont, specifically) on Vigil DVRs a few months back, one of Camacc's techs told me that their Aztech variation on MPEG4 could, in some instances, produce better compression with better quality than H.264, and that recompressing H.264 video with Aztech could even produce smaller files. I haven't tested these claims myself, but I trust the tech as someone who wasn't just trying to make me a sales pitch.

[thewireguys 3]

There are many reasons why.

 

As stated before H.264 can produce a better picture with compression, and H.264 webserver. The problem with H.264 is the same as driving a car in first gear out on the interstate at 60 mph. Some cars will blow before they get off the entrance ramp, and a customized performance car with a 4 core radiator, oil cooler, and beefed up water pump with a secondary electirc fan may go farther down the road.

 

Interesting analogy

 

The part Scorpion hasn't stated so clearly, is that H.264 requires substantial processing power compared to MPEG4... which either requires more powerful hardware, or a bunch of work-arounds to make the cheaper hardware handle it, which can create other problems.

 

There may be a company who has specialized in MPEG4, and has come up with alogrithms that make their product equal to, or better then H.264 without all of the difficult video processing required.

 

Indeed. When I asked about support for H.264 cameras (Arecont, specifically) on Vigil DVRs a few months back, one of Camacc's techs told me that their Aztech variation on MPEG4 could, in some instances, produce better compression with better quality than H.264, and that recompressing H.264 video with Aztech could even produce smaller files. I haven't tested these claims myself, but I trust the tech as someone who wasn't just trying to make me a sales pitch.

 

Yes Areconts H.264 is very good but they use there own special sauce. And I also agree I will always talk to the techs before I talk to the sales guy.

[scorpion 0]

 

Interesting analogy

 

Anyone want to buy a slightly used 62 Nova with a 350/powerglide that was only driven to the market on Sundays?

[survtech 0]

Another reason: licensing fees. MPEG-LA sells licenses for multiple codecs and their license fee structure is complex, to say the least.

[suky 0]

If H.264 is so much better than mpeg4,than why are professional companies still trying to push mpeg4,if we know that the customer will be happy more than happy with H.264?

 

 

 

H.264 is better for network transmission; and MPEG-4 is good for local storage.

[WRS_Mark 0]

Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong equipment but I still have yet to see a 4 channel H.264 DVR that can match let alone exceed the recorded picture quality of an EB1304NET-SATA (arguably one of the better "entry level" 4 Channel MPEG4 DVR's out there IMHO). Then again, about the only time I get to see them is when I go to repair either the system or troubleshoot an issue. While I am sure there are some very fine H.264 units out there (for a price), I suspect the ones I see are sold to customers just for that decal only.

 

H.264 for many people equates to High Definition. Some I see even display amazing live picture quality but when you play back the recorded material, the picture is BRUTAL even with the recording quality set to Best. As pointed out in earlier posts, I'm sure this has to do with hardware that is not up to task.

 

The argument that H.264 requires less storage space is a good one if you are running a 12-16 camera+ system. Otherwise, with the price of hard drives being so ridiculously cheap these days why would it even be a consideration on a 4-8 camera system unless you need to retain data for an exceptionally long period of time?

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts. In a perfect world every customer I have would be happy to pony up the dough for a 960 FPS, 32 Channel Hybrid DVR/NVR with 18TB of Hot Swap Hard Drives and 16MP cameras everywhere PLUS pay for every minute I spend on site AND send me a Christmas card each year. But reality dictates otherwise -for me anyway.

[Guest]

I dont know what equipment you guys that are negativ are using, but I wonder why you dont think that H.264 is superior.

 

1. H.264 compared to Mpeg4 is 2 to 4 times more efficent in filesize, bandwith as you guys have said earlier. The point then is not to lower the use of harddrives or bandwith - the point is to use same but to have higher quality frames both for networking and storage. H.264 compared to Mjpeg can be as 15 to 25 times more efficient.

 

2. There are offcourse different manufactures/suppliers of H.264. There are as also somebody commented different chips for H.264. Texas Instruments are one of the biggest if not biggest manufacture of chips. If a H.264 system manufacture buys the cheapest chips from TI then that is what he will get. For instance Hikvision have today 16 channel DVR card, recording in 4CIF @ 25/30 Frames a second on all channels, not many DVR cards can do that today, and they support dual stream as well.

 

3. To say that H.264 is bad because you have tried the "wrong" stuff probably the cheap **** is liek saing Diesel cars are **** because they are slow. While you have Diesel car that will outperform a fuel car.

 

4. Many large companies selling CCTV have been slow to adopt H.264 because their suppliers have also been slow to come up with H.264 products it is just like last year and now that we see well known brands coming with H.264 products. Axis is planning to have all there products support H.264 next year. To compare Hikvision had all their products H.264 based in 2004. I will predict that any company that do not support H.264 in 5 years from now, will be out of business or have a very small market share.

 

5. Mpeg4, Mjpeg and H.264 have many different products that is very good, good, ok, bad, sucks. Often is price a indicator very rarely will you get low price top quality. It is easier to get **** quality to a high price. So when you buy a 65,-USD DVR dont expect it to give you HD recordings.

 

Not choose H.264 to lower the HDD usage, choose H.264 and use more HDD space, the HDD is cheap anyway. But you will get better recordings!

 

JD

[ak357 0]

 

2. There are of course different manufactures/suppliers of H.264. There are as also somebody commented different chips for H.264. Texas Instruments are one of the biggest if not biggest manufacture of chips. If a H.264 system manufacture buys the cheapest chips from TI then that is what he will get. For instance Hikvision have today 16 channel DVR card, recording in 4CIF @ 25/30 Frames a second on all channels, not many DVR cards can do that today, and they support dual stream as well.

 

JD

 

100% Agree with you

Just finish talking with one of my supplier in Asia

who basically sad the same thing

Its all about chip sets and implementations

H.264 is very complex codec

has more then 10 what they call "profiles" ( plz check "Wiki" )

You can buy chip sets for few dollars or 1000's

 

just for fun have a look at the clip

only 1920x1080

but it rocks

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=eb35dae6f364038a61d4646c62b381cbe04e75f6e8ebb871

 

Use VLC and check property

look at bitrate

[rory 0]

I havent seen any DVRs with decent H264 yet.

So I will believe it as they say, when I see it

[ak357 0]

I havent seen any DVRs with decent H264 yet.

So I will believe it as they say, when I see it

 

Did u check link above ?

[rory 0]

Did u check link above ?

 

Yes, the AVI file is corrupt.

What DVR has that 1900x file supposed to have come from?

[ak357 0]

Did u check link above ?

 

Yes, the AVI file is corrupt.

What DVR has that 1900x file supposed to have come from?

 

I just download my self

and can play file

This clip from IP PTZ Cam

 

MD5 C48DDC44E5D6C7D24F9C687E74BD8C79

Edited October 28, 2009 by Guest

[rory 0]

I just download my self

and can play file

This clip from IP PTZ Cam

 

Ok thanks, but not playing on other computers.

I watch H264 movies all the time.

Also, that has no relevance to my statement about DVRs and H264

[ak357 0]

 

Ok thanks, but not playing on other computers.

I watch H264 movies all the time.

Also, that has no relevance to my statement about DVRs and H264

 

I was not refering to any "relevance"

just posted for fun

CCTV market has few Hybrid DVR

supporting IP Cam

[rory 0]

 

I was not refering to any "relevance"

just posted for fun

CCTV market has few Hybrid DVR

supporting IP Cam

 

Ok I guess I dont understand.

[Guest]

I havent seen any DVRs with decent H264 yet.

So I will believe it as they say, when I see it

 

The Geovision H.264 is not so good, so what oher brands you seen Rory?

 

 

JD

[Guest]

 

2. There are of course different manufactures/suppliers of H.264. There are as also somebody commented different chips for H.264. Texas Instruments are one of the biggest if not biggest manufacture of chips. If a H.264 system manufacture buys the cheapest chips from TI then that is what he will get. For instance Hikvision have today 16 channel DVR card, recording in 4CIF @ 25/30 Frames a second on all channels, not many DVR cards can do that today, and they support dual stream as well.

 

JD

 

100% Agree with you

Just finish talking with one of my supplier in Asia

who basically sad the same thing

 

Been talking about selling to end users? hehe

 

 

 

JD

[blake 0]

So what are the best standalone H.264 dvrs' that you guys have seen with your own eyes,as far as playing back recorded footage?

[Guest]

So what are the best standalone H.264 dvrs' that you guys have seen with your own eyes,as far as playing back recorded footage?

 

The 2 best I seen so far with my own eyes from analog cameras:

--> Hikvision 9000 Series!

--> Bosch Divar XF Series!

 

Also both of these are hybrid so they support megapixel camera recordings.

 

 

JD

[scorpion 0]

IC Realtime stand alone DVRs look great to me, but then again I am moving up from AVTech.