Compression

[Adi]

Much more complicated a debate than black and white!!

True, but its interesting.

With frame rate i was meaning over all FR. If the DVR has 25 or 50 FPS spead out over 16 channels the FR is poor and if you have a narrow feild of view say a door way or what ever you could miss most of what happened. As a basic ive been thinking of 25 fps spread over no more than 4 channels then better that by 50 fps over 4 or when needed 25 fps per channel.

Ive been looking at the DVR 365 as recommended by dave and others.

[amateurandy]

Is there anyone on here who works with Videoconferencing, which works to common standards between manufacturers? I don't but I know people who do; their views on compression are usually really interesting. A lot of the quality, as others have said, is much more down to the power/intelligence of the compression engine and how well it does its job than the standard you encode to.

Encoding/compression takes loads of power, decoding usually much less. The proof of the pudding is definitely in the eating, just reading the spec really doesn't tell you enough.

[Guest Rockford]

Is there anyone on here who works with Videoconferencing, which works to common standards between manufacturers? I don't but I know people who do; their views on compression are usually really interesting. A lot of the quality, as others have said, is much more down to the power/intelligence of the compression engine and how well it does its job than the standard you encode to.

Encoding/compression takes loads of power, decoding usually much less. The proof of the pudding is definitely in the eating, just reading the spec really doesn't tell you enough.

Yeah, we do vidcon... Very complicated subject... If you want to know more about that, I'd suggest you contact me / us directly since we'll fill the message board otherwise!!

[Greenhorn]

Very difficult to say as some are very similar. Note that quality is not the ONLY thing that makes a codec good... Some are naturally better at streaming, some use less CPU time etc. Just in terms of QUALITY, I think:

1. MJPEG

2. JPEG2000

3. JPEG (NOT a video codec)

4. Wavelet

5. MPEG4

JPEG-2000 is JPEG's version of Wavelet I think?

With MPEG-4 you've a lot more in the way of options

in visual and audio + it's a lot more robust if streaming

through narrow bandwidths.

M-JPEG, (motion), is just loads of fast flowing of JPEG images,

and has quite low compression rates compared to M-PEG4.

MPEG-4 with MPEG-7 would be the best combination.

Motion JPEG 2000/H.264 =W.T.S.(watch this space).

[PeterR]

JPEG-2000 is JPEG's version of Wavelet I think?

With MPEG-4 you've a lot more in the way of options

in visual and audio + it's a lot more robust if streaming

through narrow bandwidths.

M-JPEG, (motion), is just loads of fast flowing of JPEG images,

and has quite low compression rates compared to M-PEG4.

MPEG-4 with MPEG-7 would be the best combination.

Motion JPEG 2000/H.264 =W.T.S.(watch this space).

I thought H264 was MPEG4 Part 10 or something like that!

As for the order, for picture quality (based on best first):

1. Wavelet

2. MJPEG

3. MPEG4

No experience of the others, sorry.

for file size (eg. network transmission, smallest file size first)

1. MPEG4

2. MJPEG

3. Wavelet

[Greenhorn]

I thought H264 was MPEG4 Part 10 or something like that!

As for the order, for picture quality (based on best first):

1. Wavelet

2. MJPEG

3. MPEG4

No experience of the others, sorry.

for file size (eg. network transmission, smallest file size first)

1. MPEG4

2. MJPEG

3. Wavelet

H.264 is the same as MPEG-4 Part 10 advanced video coding.

It's from MPEG merged with VCEG,

it's a lot better than anything before it,

especially if used with fidelity range extensions,

or the MAC OS X.

Mostly used with HD-DVD and video conferencing.

[Guest Rockford]

H.264 is the same as MPEG-4 Part 10 advanced video coding.

It's from MPEG merged with VCEG,

it's a lot better than anything before it,

especially if used with fidelity range extensions,

or the MAC OS X.

Mostly used with HD-DVD and video conferencing.

I'm guessing by your educated posts that you work in DV somehow? Can't remember your previous posts exactly, but I think you're right... JPEG2000 = Joint Picture Experts Group version of Wavelet... They're virtually indistinguishable!!

[Greenhorn]

I'm guessing by your educated posts that you work in DV somehow? Can't remember your previous posts exactly, but I think you're right... JPEG2000 = Joint Picture Experts Group version of Wavelet... They're virtually indistinguishable!!

During the past, mainly through PC networks, but now it's a hobbie.

My time in the military took me down that path and I'm following it up

to pursue a career in CCTV + access control when I leave the forces

in January of the new year, having already re-trained in this area.

(hint hint - any potential employers my cv's on stanby!)

Your right though JPEG-2000 and Wavelet are the same,

JPEG-2000 is the standardization of Wavelet,

for that reason only it's better.