Jpeg Or Mpeg4 Dvr

[satsuma01]

What is people views and which one would people in the industry say was the better images?

[georgahti]

jpeg

and as the hd space grows more in the future i think the industry might go back to that.

but your question is actually a bit silly as you should know if you think about it a little..

[alterEGO]

but your question is actually a bit silly as you should know if you think about it a little..

It tends to be his rule of thumb when posting.

[georgahti]

well - it is a good rule of thumb if you are not sure yourself but don't want to admit your lack of knowledge.

[james.wilson]

wrong question im afraid

its liek saying which is faster

lambo or ferrari.

its all about bitrates and compression levels.

you cant say all jpeg based machines are better than all mpeg and vice versa.

I would say however that doe to the modern trend of 'i want 31 days' then mpeg has too low a bitrate to achieve decent quality.

I have spouted my view on this before and would prefer 1-2 fps of quality than 10 fps of shi##

however from a technical viewpoint the mpeg and the most recent variant (10) h264 is probably the most advanced codec but i have yet to see a machine that convinces me that mpeg is the way to go for recording. Im still in the jpeg and jpeg 2000 school. Even though i accept that mpeg is better for streaming i dont think its the way to go for storage. ie hard disks aint exactly dear these days, just throw another 1tb (2Tb drives now exist) in and stick with jpeg. But use h264 for streaming as the framerate is better and bandwidth is low.

BUT if your mpeg based machine allows you to have a high enough bitrate and a low iframe count then mpeg will match jpeg for quality (assuming high jpegf file sizes) but the beneifts of mpeg in this situation are low as you would have to reduce the frame rate just as you do with jpeg.

So it also depends on the application. IMO most systems dont need more than 5fps per cam, some do (shoplifting, slight of hand, vehicle capture etc) but most dont. I would also say in a lot of cases 1-2 fps is more than sufficent. This trend of 25fps regardless idont agree with, Yes 25fps is better but why do you need 25fps all the time?

id like to see an intelligent archive system that stores 12 fps for a week, then reencodes to say 6, then 3, then 1 then deletes it. That way recent stuff is high bitrate high fps, and as it gets older the bitraye and fps drops.

But back to the op, the question cant be answered as it has too many variables. But id generalise and assume lots and say jpeg

[satsuma01]

wrong question im afraid

its liek saying which is faster

lambo or ferrari.

its all about bitrates and compression levels.

you cant say all jpeg based machines are better than all mpeg and vice versa.

I would say however that doe to the modern trend of 'i want 31 days' then mpeg has too low a bitrate to achieve decent quality.

I have spouted my view on this before and would prefer 1-2 fps of quality than 10 fps of shi##

however from a technical viewpoint the mpeg and the most recent variant (10) h264 is probably the most advanced codec but i have yet to see a machine that convinces me that mpeg is the way to go for recording. Im still in the jpeg and jpeg 2000 school. Even though i accept that mpeg is better for streaming i dont think its the way to go for storage. ie hard disks aint exactly dear these days, just throw another 1tb (2Tb drives now exist) in and stick with jpeg. But use h264 for streaming as the framerate is better and bandwidth is low.

BUT if your mpeg based machine allows you to have a high enough bitrate and a low iframe count then mpeg will match jpeg for quality (assuming high jpegf file sizes) but the beneifts of mpeg in this situation are low as you would have to reduce the frame rate just as you do with jpeg.

So it also depends on the application. IMO most systems dont need more than 5fps per cam, some do (shoplifting, slight of hand, vehicle capture etc) but most dont. I would also say in a lot of cases 1-2 fps is more than sufficent. This trend of 25fps regardless idont agree with, Yes 25fps is better but why do you need 25fps all the time?

id like to see an intelligent archive system that stores 12 fps for a week, then reencodes to say 6, then 3, then 1 then deletes it. That way recent stuff is high bitrate high fps, and as it gets older the bitraye and fps drops.

But back to the op, the question cant be answered as it has too many variables. But id generalise and assume lots and say jpeg

my thoughts on it exactly redbull, i wasnt sure wether to update our mpeg dvr you see, and after installing only jpegs on site then gewtting this mpeg dvr to try out, im not really happy with it at all, so jpeg 200 for home it is then, anyone want t mpeg dvr

[Cubit]

my thoughts on it exactly redbull, i wasnt sure wether to update our mpeg dvr you see, and after installing only jpegs on site then gewtting this mpeg dvr to try out, im not really happy with it at all, so jpeg 200 for home it is then, anyone want t mpeg dvr

The logic behind that statement is what exactly??

[Doktor Jon]

I have spouted my view on this before and would prefer 1-2 fps of quality than 10 fps of shi##

Couldn't agree more redbull

id like to see an intelligent archive system that stores 12 fps for a week, then reencodes to say 6, then 3, then 1 then deletes it. That way recent stuff is high bitrate high fps, and as it gets older the bitraye and fps drops.

Interesting you should say that rb, as an american manufacturer (I think from memory they're called Timesight Systems), launched precisely this type of Time Management Record system, towards the end of last year. You can set various parameters to reduce file sizes over time, including reducing frame rates, resolution, and increasing compression.

The idea is attractive for certain end users in so far as it helps to minimise storage costs, particularly on large systems, but unfortunately in terms of Forensic Surveillance use, it is a complete mare

General opinion amongst some top end CCTV peeps, is the idea of of deliberately degrading images that may at some stage be required for use as part of a serious crime / terrorism related enquiry, is just completely barking .... mind you that doesn't mean they aren't selling the systems into a US market already strongly populated by IT bods that are well familiar with the concept for routine data reduction.

Will the idea land here in the UK? .... almost certainly yes .... will it become widely adopted .... what can I say ....

[james.wilson]

i hear what your saying dj.

but my thoughts on it are that it would be better to have a low qual version of something than nothing, however IF the client is on the ball the system would not be doing this for the first x days so the high qual, gigh fps footage would still be on the machine. I do agree that 14, 21, 28 etc days would be better but most people tend to set the machine up to last that long without a thought for whats actually being captured. At least with a reencode system it could allow a bit of both.

However when you say iy like you did it does sound like it might cause more issues than it solves lol

[digitalwitness]

id like to see an intelligent archive system that stores 12 fps for a week, then reencodes to say 6, then 3, then 1 then deletes it. That way recent stuff is high bitrate high fps, and as it gets older the bitraye and fps drops.

I think the industry term is "Fading", Avigilon has this feature in their HD IP software, you can decide when to reduce the frame rate of recordings, there are two steps available. As they also record in JPEG2000 this should mean the integrity of each individual image should still be intact. Avigilon recently won HD Company of the year for north america.