How great is h264 v2 and v8.2

[mcs 0]

Just upgraded a customers site to 8.2 on a gv1480 card, with 15.tb hdd space (3 x 500gb's) they used to get 30-35 days on 12 cameras in a servo, highest recording rate, max res 720/576, etc etc, and they get 66 days now

 

Have another site with 2 gv 1480's we just upgraded to 8.2 and we put 3 x 1tb's, one dvr has 16 cams other has 6, they are getting since 9th Dec to now, and still got 1.15 tb to go,

 

 

I love h264 v2 and GEOVISION.

[VIDEOMN 0]

I have quite a few systems out there with (6) 1.5 TB drives, others with (6) 1.0 TB drives recording 8-16 cameras round the clock (no motion at all) and at most using all 16 cameras will record almost TWO MONTHS of continuous video. Of course the very first thing I checked is, to make sure I was recording the utmost highest video quality capable and at maximum FPS per channels and they are.

 

Over the past few months I have spoken to members here, fellow techs in the field as well as (3) different distributors I buy from and (4) different techs at Geovision (one just yesterday repeating what I asked over the past months to verify rumors) that have ALL told me the same thing. If I have the time I always confirm a rumor or a previous tech's answers while on the phone with Geovision.

 

But everyone said the following:

 

If space is NOT an issue, DO NOT USE V2 264 and only use the regular H264. Everyone agreed without argument that the video quality is better.

 

No one said it was bad, worse, crappy or anything, they all just simply said do not use V2 if you don't have to. Frankly, I don't really see a difference myself as I have tried both, but really have not had to take any close up photos, zoom ins or anything that I wished I had or had or had not used V2, I just took them at their word. Perhaps it is seen when you remote in with a slow internet connection or something where it will be a benefit to you. Of course the obvious is that you will get another 10-15 days or more is a great bonus using V2. If anyone can confirm for sure any complaints using V2, wishing they had or had not used it I would love to read it. Otherwise everyone I have run into is happy just being able to go back more than a weekend or single week (using 160GB or 500GB drives) let alone having now 2 whole months to look at .

 

MN

[mcs 0]

I will test in the office and report back ASAP...

Interesting, I have recorded a lot of footage on v2,a nd have not noticed a recognizable difference...

[VIDEOMN 0]

I know this is not going to come out right, but let me try to explain with a few examples here and see if you can tell what I am trying to say. It's late and I have not been getting much sleep, hopefully it won't be too much jiberish (LOL).

 

Lets say your an architect, designer, or somebody working with heavy CAD or greatly detailed graphical designs. Notice the file sizes of the images are HUGE. Instead of 24k, 230k or 2-6MB we are talking file sizes of 10,20,30 and 150MB for a single picture. That's because the more data you have in the object or file, the more it can be manipulated, edited, zoomed in, etc... and not degrade in the least bit. Depending on compression, it could take 20 seconds to TWO MIN to open the image and see it on your screen. Some programs do not even like compression and crash if you try to use their data files in compressed form. Take a simple JPG image, depending on the quality of the camera, analog or digital, the resolution, file size, number of pixels or lines etc... if you zoomed in you would see the hair on a persons arm and possible even the pores they grow out of instead of just little (or big) dots and pixels and mosaic blurs the more you zoom in.

 

Now for the most part it is not that extreme or a difference of night and day per say, (then again the hardware makes the judgment call on how much you will be hit) but there is and has to be a great difference here.

 

When you record video and you have sound filters, and noise filters, and anti-blurring, anti fogging, compression, more compression, compression X2 etc.... your adding layers to the data that will interfere with later manipulation and taking "some" quality away. Now of course in some cases these features will enhance a picture that would not be seen without its use and a must to have, but you have to balance the two and take the lesser of all the evils and just make sure the choices you make are for the better.

 

Another example, lets say you have all this compression, all these filters, de-noise and everything else turned on. Something happens, you now have this video that you want to send out to get professionally enhanced.... Let me tell you that you will regret it later because the software THEY will use, has to work with what you already took away and tampered with and interfered with it's virginity and will not be as good or give them as much to work with. They would prefer the raw data, untouched, unedited, uncompressed, etc....

 

For the most part, the average user would probably not notice a thing for what simple things they do. After all, had we not shown them the difference in quality D1 video a PC based unit can provide over a standalone DVR they would have never known and been happy right?

 

The other issue (which has to take part) is where compression is causing there CPU (and software) to work a little harder and slow things down. Yes, it will work a tad bit more and will use more resources to do all this extra compression using V2, it simply has to!!! It is simple mathematics and mechanics... But when you have that moment where you needed it, you will wish you had it and didn't do it. Might not be a difference you can see with the naked eye (or maybe you can) or just doing every day stuff or watching video on an analog TV screen, but there is an advantage and disadvantage to using the extra compression or any at all for that matter.

 

Not a real huge deal for me on the big beefy machines I put together, I have yet to really research and see for myself how much it may degrade the video quality, slow down a server or influence the video data and with what kind of image, event or video clip it would really reflect these issues to be able to see it clearly to show anyone. If anything other than a little slower speed (or a lot on a cheapie system most people build), a harder working CPU and/or software to write it and compress it and then open it and read it highly compressed form and have an extra step or two, my "guess" is that unless the computer is real slow or slower responding in performance (which would have to be to some degree) only a professional like us would know to look for these changes or degradation or know how to point it out to a customer. Maybe in another instance unless you had not shown them another machine sitting next to the one they are using recording the same data (using a loop back or loop through connection) and NOT using the extra compression, they wouldn't know the picture could be just a little or a lot better, or their computer a little, much or twice as fast without it. Who really knows and with so many variables of machines and hardware everyone will find some degree of performance or video quality they may be sacrificing.

 

Just like your average wifi connection, depending on the device (handheld, palm, iphone, laptop, desktop, using it for gamming, surfing or E-Mail, Wii game box, etc... the higher the encryption (64 vs 128bit or none at all), using NAT or not, using dynamic routing or not, using a firewall or not, will reflect how fast it accesses the internet and how fast it communicates with the wireless router having to do all this work and all this decifering too. Now this much here I know for fact using encryption.....

 

Just my 2 cents, storage is cheap now, if I don't have to use compression I don't, if I don't have to use the "Extra V2" compression I don't, and for whatever reason, Geovision themselves seems to agree not to use it for some reason if you don't have to. They must not be telling us all the reasons, maybe the software gets flakey working harder for the V2 compression or something, maybe the video is much less in quality, but there must be (has to be) some sacrifices to using it somewhere. It's always worked for me playing it safe and using as little compression and fewer optional tools as possible, but if you are going to try it out, I would love to hear what you find and your opinions on this. Maybe you can explain it a little better and much shorter to other viewers here....

 

Regards,

 

MN

[ilkevinli 0]

MN,

What do YOU feel gives the best picture quality out of all the compression formats (h264,mpeg,mpeg-asp, etc.) if say you had to zoom in to get a good facial picture from a recorded video file ? Thanks.

[VIDEOMN 0]

Personally, I use MPEG-ASP (With no noise filter in advanced codec) or GEO H264. For me, MPEG-ASP is all around smooth without a problem, great for web cam or viewing across the LAN/WAN and suits me just fine. Its great for indoor well lighted areas and smooth movement. On outside not so lighted cameras I lean more towards GEO H264 because the fast movement of pixels and not so well lighted areas of the field are a tad mosaic and fluttering with any fast movement. (Kind of like watching playback at 16fps instead of 30fps is what it looks like) You really have to look to see it and would REALLY see it if using several night vision cameras with almost no light. MPEG compression tends to get "blocky" and mosaic in high contrast or not so well lighted areas in my opinion.

 

Now that I had some sleep, I had a few other things I forgot to mention that although you may already know this, others reading this thread may find it helpful....

 

Using compression will strip digital layers off that you would not see with the naked eye. It may lower the resolution and degrade image quality. Most internet web sites use some form of compression for HTML. But now you have to add in the compression/decompression rate at both ends as well. Lets say you had a 50MB file. You would have TWO formulas here. One would be what it takes you to download as is, the other if it was compressed (which again would and should be faster). Formula 1 is simply the amount of time it takes to download factored in by the speed of your connection (assuming no CRC transmission errors or problems within any servers or hops), and how fast it can write to your cache and be displayed on your monitor. Formula 2 is much the same, may take 1/2 or 1/3 less the time to download, maybe 1/4, 1/2 to 1/3 less in file size, PLUS you have to add in an extra few milliseconds/seconds or two (maybe a min or two on slow poorly designed machines depending on CPU speed and # of processes running) to DEcompress what you just downloaded faster at your station. That's where the "Graininess" comes in. For the most part, sending files in smaller sizes will be faster as it is less data being transmitted, it just makes sense right.... However, put a few CRC errors or burps in the internet connection and you can send a file HALF the size and have it take 3 times longer as it re-transmits lost or dropped packets and tries to reassemble your highly compressed file format. But that is a connection problem with your ISP that would cause that. Or possibly the compression or "Burst Mode" some cable providers use to make their network or DSL faster than the competition. Also the extra step it takes to decompress and the extra work load on your CPU being added. Now it is not like it is such a work load that no one should ever use compression, because we do everyday without knowing it, but it is an added process and will do a little more work and add to system resources. But that is what a computer does, it multitasks and can do more than one process at a time.

 

HERE IS A POST I FOUND THAT EXPLAINS WHAT COMPRESSION ACTUALLY DOES:

 

Keep Changes to a Minimum

 

Before we talk about making your video compression friendly, it's important to understand why video needs to be compressed in the first place. As you know, each frame of digital video consists of a grid of pixels which represent the light and color in the image. For example, a standard definition NTSC signal is 720 pixels wide and 480 pixels tall. By multiplying the two dimensions, we see that there are 345,600 pixels in the image. 1080p HD video is 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels tall, which means each frame takes over two million pixels to represent. Each one of these pixels is a separate data point describing the picture we see.

 

The problem is change. Each frame of video is made up of hundreds of thousands of pixels, which can change at a rate of 30 times per second or more. That's a lot of information. If we try to describe it all, our video files get so big that they’re practically unusable. But if we throw away the wrong information, the picture deteriorates.

 

Over the years, compression engineers have invented two very useful tactics for efficiently representing all these pixels without sacrificing quality: motion estimation and frame differencing. In a nutshell, motion estimation reduces the amount of change that must be represented for moving objects, while frame differencing enables us to ignore pixels that don’t change from frame to frame.

 

When possible, simplify the background. Choosing a stationary background instead of a moving one allows the H.264 compressor to discard more repetitive data from the image. Simple backgrounds work especially well for “talking headâ€

[ilkevinli 0]

MN,

Thanks for the information !!! Those are some very well written posts.

[rory 0]

If space is not an issue, just stick with standard Geo Mpeg4.

Geo's H.264 and ASP is not that great quality.

[icebox037 0]

hi to all nice thread, im using also 8.2 version, i had an eard drixperienced when i used h264v2 i get a mosaic video in recording with a recording of 78 days in 1.5tb hard drive i used 3 for rec control, a motion detect recording and 720x480 resolution in recording.. to eliminate the video mosaic i used mpeg-asp. yet i think i solved video mosaic, but now my client is complaining with regards to length of recording co'z from 78 the recording now going down to 35 days only, and keep on complaining about the recording length is there a possibility or solution that i can used to have a better compression and yet a longer recording for 1.5tb..

 

Thanks...