Mobotox vs h.264

[USA Ed 0]

Have been doing more research and can't figure out if Mobotox is really any better than decent h.264 cameras / Setup.

 

It seems that you will have much more flexibility by going with h.264 cameras because there are so many different manufactuers who make cameras under this standard Vs using a Mobotox setup and using only Mobotox cameras. This is assuming, and I may be incorrect, that if you go with a Mobotox setup you will only be able to use Mobotox cameras with that setup.

 

Wouldn't it be better to just use h.264 for a 5-10 camera setup, and choose the best cameras on the market for each individual area.

[buellwinkle 0]

Don't know why Mobotix hasn't adapted the H.264 format, but their propriatory compression is quite good and never had a problem with it.

 

Here's Mobitix's reasons for not going to this format - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQaTjSs0cvc

Edited June 5, 2010 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

First of all Mobotix is more then a CCTV system. To fully understand you must get your hands on the product.

 

 

No moving parts in the cameras

 

No houses required

 

Fewer cameras due to the more accurate detail of wide-angle images with megapixel technology,

 

Fewer PCs/DVRs, because around 40 cameras can store high-resolution video with sound efficiently on a single PC, or no PC at all when recording on the camera's digital storage (USB, SD card),

 

Lower network bandwidth, because everything is processed in the camera itself and the high-resolution images therefore do not have to be constantly transferred for analysis.

 

Free software

 

VOIP support

[rory 0]

I used the Mobotix software last night .. I added a bunch of Axis test cameras, as I have no Mobotix cameras to test .. and they all worked fine. Granted that was mjpeg .. but still .. it has options for other cameras also such as Panasonic and others, the software is free on their site just have to register. You dont even need the demo pack, just download the latest version of the MX Control Center and then add your IP cameras. I guess not too many people know about their software yet?

[amirm 0]

Don't know why Mobotix hasn't adapted the H.264 format, but their propriatory compression is quite good and never had a problem with it.

 

Here's Mobitix's reasons for not going to this format - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQaTjSs0cvc

Ipacademy does decent work with these videos and their newsletter but they are a still a promoter of Mobotix solutions . Mind you, I like the camera but I think the video tells the wrong story.

 

They say that Mobotix compression is cheaper to use because you don't need a PC to capture the video. That is due to the architecture of Mobotix being able to save to a network share, not because it uses their own compression. To wit, if they switched to H.264 tomorrow, everything would stay the same at their end so the argument they make has nothing to do with choice of compression.

 

Real reason Mobotix uses its own compression is that it is a very simple scheme. It simply compares frame to frame and sends out the block that is different. H.264 algorithms also divide the screen into blocks but then can move them without having to retransmit them. This makes them far more efficient that MxPEG that Mobotix uses. The down side is though, as explained in the video, that H.264 is much slower to encode and requires so much more horsepower. Mobotix takes advantage of this by having the main host CPU (ARM processor) also handle encoding. This simply is not possible with H.264 which requires dedicated encoder or DSP. This adds cost but more importantly, generates more heat. See the recently mentioned 3-4 megapixel Sanyo H.264 camera which uses about 7 watts as compared to 3 for Mobotix. The lower power means the housing doesn't fog up as much, and the POE switch doesn't have to put as much juice (running cooler and staying more reliable).

 

There is a cost to this choice though. If you pay attention to Mobotix demo clips, you see how blocks change and the strange look of having the previous frame and current frame mixed up at block boundaries. For high fidelity video, that will be a non-starter, but for CCTV applications, it is fine. One could also make an argument that when the blocks change, they retain their resolution better than H.264 which uses filtering to soften the block edges and hence, reduces detail. Again, for entertainment video presentation, H.264 is a better choice but for this app, an argument can be made that MxPEG is a better choice.

 

What do you think? Should they have hired me to do their marketing material?

[Harrar 0]

It seems that you will have much more flexibility by going with h.264 cameras because there are so many different manufactuers who make cameras under this standard Vs using a Mobotox setup and using only Mobotox cameras. This is assuming, and I may be incorrect, that if you go with a Mobotox setup you will only be able to use Mobotox cameras with that setup.

 

As Rory stated, you can use different cameras with the MxControlCenter program. Only complaint, it isn't the most user friendly program in the world. It's main advantage when used with Mobotix cameras is that you can manipulate the recorded data (pan/tilt/zoom) just as you can the live views.

 

You can also use Mobotix cameras with the Geovision Hybrid or NVR systems without a problem and get exellent videon and audio.

[Simon Hall 0]

Ipacademy does decent work with these videos and their newsletter but they are a still a promoter of Mobotix solutions

MxInstaller to MOBOTIX is like what Macworld is to Apple...no more - no less.

 

They say that Mobotix compression is cheaper to use because you don't need a PC to capture the video. That is due to the architecture of Mobotix being able to save to a network share, not because it uses their own compression. To wit, if they switched to H.264 tomorrow, everything would stay the same at their end so the argument they make has nothing to do with choice of compression.

The Hidden Cost of H.264 tutorial does not in anyway suggest that the decentralized recording platform is achieved through implementing MxPEG. To clarify - the merits of MOBOTIX camera's being able to write in a recording database format direct to storage, is because the VMS is installed in the cameras not a computer. It's this attribute that enables the cameras to write directly to a file share. You might want to check out a YouTube tutorial which explains this further.

 

The purpose of the The Hidden Cost of H.264 tutorial is to primarily highlight key issues at the source and head-end.

 

The high cost of using H.264 in video surveillance is created because most IP camera systems are centralized, so all recordings must be streamed to a central NVR - unless you don't want storage, event handling and recording database management.

 

High resolutions centralized recording systems require high cost PC/Servers, not to mentioned licensed VMS which can cost anyway up to $200+ per camera license for the privilege of being able to record. In these systems the bandwidth advantages to H.264 become irrelevant because the cameras have to stream the data to a central point on the network. You could of course deploy NVRs at the edge but that - again - is expensive.

 

There are of course other issues with using H.264 which have become more apparent over time.

 

Real reason Mobotix uses its own compression is that it is a very simple scheme. Mobotix takes advantage of this by having the main host CPU (ARM processor) also handle encoding. This simply is not possible with H.264 which requires dedicated encoder or DSP. This adds cost but more importantly, generates more heat. See the recently mentioned 3-4 megapixel Sanyo H.264 camera which uses about 7 watts as compared to 3 for Mobotix. The lower power means the housing doesn't fog up as much, and the POE switch doesn't have to put as much juice (running cooler and staying more reliable).

These are excellent examples of the inherent qualities of MxPEG, which were required outcomes factored in during the development process, but what you have listed are not the "real reason" why MOBOTIX developed MxPEG. The real reason is two-fold...

 

1. Frame-for-frame capture

MPEG codecs are great for streaming but inappropriate for surveillance. MOBOTIX saw that a codec needed to be developed specifically for the requirements of surveillance, designed to capture and record frame-for-frame movement and scene changes in high quality.

 

2. Scaling

Being non-CPU intensive, MxPEG enables systems to up-scale in camera numbers and resolution with minimal impact on hardware.

 

EDIT...

 

For anyone else who may be confused about the key points in this video, below, we have broken it down:

vQaTjSs0cvc

Timeline

1:29 -2:20 Powerpoint slide from an Axis presentation showing the encoding/decoding of H.264 has higher complexity requiring more CPU power.

 

2:20 - 2:41 In a centralized surveillance it's the processing requirements and cost server-side, that represents the hidden cost of H.264

 

2:42 - 3:54 CPU requirements for recording using Axis VMS, based on Axis Camera Station calculations

 

3:55 - 5:16 CPU requirements for recording using Milestone XProtect calculator

 

5:56 - Cost of server-side is lower with a decentralised system because of lower coding complexity, no VMS licensing, no PC/Server required. H.264 further compounds the costs associated server side in a centralized system.

 

Key points

• H.264 IP cameras are designed for centralized systems requiring dedicated servers, licensed software and high CPU to process. H.264 has brought with it unprecedented complexity that requires more processing power, thus more cost, server-side, than ever before - which many are not aware of. (These costs had, back in 2008, not been openly addressed.)

• The MOBOTIX decentralised platform, enables direct-record-to-storage recording which is made possible by the VMS in the camera, not MxPEG.

• MOBOTIX has the ability to record to any type of storage media - no dedicated VMS server required

• The MxPEG codec requires very little hardware processing as compared to H.264

 

I would also recommend this video as a follow to explain further the decentralized IP video concept.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Guest

[amirm 0]

MxInstaller to MOBOTIX is like what Macworld is to Apple...no more - no less.

Hmmm. This is the description you provide on your Youtube web site:

 

"We actively assist third party manufacturers of specialized software, storage, networking and wireless technologies to help them align their products with the megapixel video surveillance market.

 

Contact us if you'd like to learn how we might help promote your products to the global IP surveillance market @ ....com"

 

Pretty sure Mac World doesn't have this kind of mission statement .

 

The Hidden Cost of H.264 tutorial does not in anyway suggest that the decentralized recording platform is achieved through implementing MxPEG.

Given the title of the presentation which includes the name of the codec, h.264, it heavily implies such a thing and hence me addressing it.

 

The purpose of the The Hidden Cost of H.264 tutorial is to primarily highlight key issues at the source and head-end.

Then it should have been titled at such. As it is, it paints a confusing picture of what is a codec, and what is a storage architectures. As you state here, these are orthogonal concepts and should not be mixed this way.

 

As I noted, I have watched your videos and they are generally high quality. This mixing of topics is an exception.

 

The high cost of using H.264 in video surveillance is created because most IP camera systems are centralized, so all recordings must be streamed to a central NVR - unless you don't want storage, event handling and recording database management. High resolutions centralized recording systems require high cost PC/Servers, not to mentioned licensed VMS which can cost anyway up to $200+ per camera license for the privilege of being able to record.

Well, as you know, the cost there is for a lot more than just to record. The light VMS that is inside Mobotix can't support all the functionality that they do. I am not arguing against what Mobotix has but let's not push the message to the point that is hard to defend .

[Simon Hall 0]

Pretty sure Mac World doesn't have this kind of mission statement .

Maybe you have not been in communique with an ad rep from MacWorld - they actively engage potential advertisers on how they can promote third party products to the Apple community - it's a great model and creates win/win for both vendor and reader. Most of Macworld's content is about what-else-works-with-Apple. BTW that is not our mission statement, it's one of the many services we provide to vendors to enable us to fund MxInstaller magazine, so that it can be distributed to the community free of charge.

 

I am not arguing against what Mobotix has but let's not push the message to the point that is hard to defend .

I addressed your comments relating to the tutorial and MxPEG, for the rest of the community, because they were incorrect.

[amirm 0]

Pretty sure Mac World doesn't have this kind of mission statement .

Maybe you have not been in communique with an ad rep from MacWorld - they actively engage potential advertisers on how they can promote third party products to the Apple community - it's a great model and creates win/win for both vendor and reader. Most of Macworld's content is about what-else-works-with-Apple. BTW that is not our mission statement, it's one of the many services we provide to vendors to enable us to fund MxInstaller magazine, so that it can be distributed to the community free of charge.

What I quoted was under "About theipacademy." It said that you published your articles every so often and then what I quoted. So if it is not your mission, not sure what it is.

 

And no, I don't agree that paying for advertising buys editorial content of Mac World. If you covered the entire industry and then showed a Mobotix ad, then you could say you are like Mac World. Your business model is the other way around where the entire editorial content is from the commercial vendor.

 

My read of your services is that if I pay you, you will publish what seems to be independent articles but in reality are infomercials for my product. If that is not what you mean, then maybe you should clarify it there.

 

Again, I think in the context of commercial intent, you do a reasonable job. There is useful information and as long as the person knows there is an intent there to promote that product as I mentioned, then all is well.

I am not arguing against what Mobotix has but let's not push the message to the point that is hard to defend .

I addressed your comments relating to the tutorial and MxPEG, for the rest of the community, because they were incorrect.

What was incorrect? You agreed with everything I said. The only thing that was incorrect was your clarification saying an article that has an headline of H.264 in it, is really about how you store the bits and not the codec. The merits of their codecs is what I listed, not some twist it of it into some other talking point.

 

BTW, on a personal level, I have been a champion of Mobotix here and elsewhere. This interchange however has really soured my positive view of the company. If they have hired you to come and post this way, and you can't tell the friend from foe, then someone is not doing their job well.

[Simon Hall 0]

Firstly I want to apologize to the OP (USA Ed) and the community for the emotional hijacking...I know the original post is 2010, but I would like to get this back on the topic of "MOBOTIX vs H.264" (in terms of surveillance recording), as it's an important one. I want to offer some usable information to those who have clicked to get answers on the subject.

 

Here's two interesting articles I would recommend...I will be back with some more later...

 

JPEG2000, MJPEG, MPEG and H.264 in the security environment

http://www.initsys.net/attachments/Compression%20and%20DigitisationPDF.pdf

This is an interesting read which includes quotes from the MPEG committee with their thoughts on using H.264 and MPEG codecs in surveillance.

 

H.264 considerations

http://www.iqeye.com/iqeye/H.264_Considerations.pdf

Article by vendor IQInvision who manufacture megapixel IP cameras. (quote) "Select H.264 when your requirements dictate that saving bandwidth is more important than consistent image quality or predictability in bandwidth or storage needs."

Edited August 31, 2012 by Guest

[buellwinkle 0]

Why is it h.264 vs. Mobotix. Their D14 Dual Dome has the option of h.264.

[Simon Hall 0]

Why is it h.264 vs. Mobotix. Their D14 Dual Dome has the option of h.264.

Good point to clarify...thanks buellwinkle

 

H.264 for VoIP (telephony video) streaming yes, which H.264 is great for, but not recommend for surveillance recording.

[ak357 0]

Why is it h.264 vs. Mobotix. Their D14 Dual Dome has the option of h.264.

 

I think the point is

Record in jpeg but transmit in H.264

I am glad Avigilon has Jpeg2000

[Simon Hall 0]

MOBOTIX recently announced they will be integrating ONVIF and H.264 within their new software platform

 

pTSWDRe703I

[thewireguys 3]

MOBOTIX recently announced they will be integrating ONVIF and H.264 within their new software platform

 

pTSWDRe703I

 

Wait so they are integrating H.264 and ONVIF in the software but not on the cameras...lol

 

When is Mobotix going to get the point!

[buellwinkle 0]

There's always hope that they will gain their technological dominance once again, but from what I've seen, they remind me of Mercedes Benz. A while back, when you bought an MB, say back in 2004, the car came with a cassette radio. At the time, cassettes were not even being made and the world has switched to CDs, so they were maybe 10 years behind the times. Then they finally came out with CD players in their cars as the need for CD players diminished. My guess is that Mobotix will have h.264 in their cameras when h.264 is no longer relevant.

 

My theory is there's companies out there that work so hard on their product and believe in it so much that they do not feel the need to try competing technologies or follow industry trends, why would they, they had one of the best products many years ago, what could have possibly changed in the world of technology?

[Simon Hall 0]

Wait so they are integrating H.264 and ONVIF in the software but not on the cameras...

When is Mobotix going to get the point!

To clarify, the MOBOTIX ONVIF/H.264 roll out plan is as follows:

 

- Step 1. release MxMultiviewer to allow integration of MOBOTIX and ONVIF/H.264 (non-MOBOTIX) devices under one central software platform

- Step 2. incorporate H.264 into MOBOTIX cameras (announced by MOBOTIX in a March 2015 press conference)

 

On 23 January 2015, ONVIF welcomed MOBOTIX in as a full member, so after step 2 is in place, implementing ONVIF compliance with their hardware would seem to be the logical corollary. No official date has been announced for this third step.

[SteveSas 0]

They say that Mobotix compression is cheaper to use because you don't need a PC to capture the video. That is due to the architecture of Mobotix being able to save to a network share, not because it uses their own compression. To wit, if they switched to H.264 tomorrow, everything would stay the same at their end so the argument they make has nothing to do with choice of compression.

 

wow I feel dumber after reading that. It's what you would call a MacGuffin quote, it's irrelevant and makes no sense.

 

What do you think? Should they have hired me to do their marketing material?

 

now that really is a terrible idea.