bpzle 0 Posted June 11, 2010 H.264 if done properly has its advantages and in my opinion CAN look just as good as mpeg4. However, in my opinion a sub $500 dvr just isn't going to have the processing power to compress good quality h.264 video. We've tested several "budget" DVRs from various manufacturers and have concluded that in low end DVRs MPEG4 is the way to go. There's lots of types of h.264 compression but a DVR must have some pretty beefy processing power to be able to compress decent quality video in this format. This of course raises the cost of the DVR and in our opinion, the best bang for the buck is to just buy more storage and go with an MPEG4 dvr. Thoughts? Opinions? What other types of marketing hype do you think end users should not be tricked by? Like "night vision" cameras, TVL, FPS, etc... What are some advertised specs you have found to be just sales tools that cloud over the real functions that people should be interested in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ak357 0 Posted June 11, 2010 H.264 if done properly has its advantages and in my opinion CAN look just as good as mpeg4. However, in my opinion a sub $500 dvr just isn't going to have the processing power to compress good quality h.264 video. We've tested several "budget" DVRs from various manufacturers and have concluded that in low end DVRs MPEG4 is the way to go. There's lots of types of h.264 compression but a DVR must have some pretty beefy processing power to be able to compress decent quality video in this format. This of course raises the cost of the DVR and in our opinion, the best bang for the buck is to just buy more storage and go with an MPEG4 dvr. Thoughts? Opinions? I kinda agree with you but I think its implementation of codec used by some manufactures which H.264 profile they use which chip sets are they willing to pay for h.264 lic and so on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soundy 1 Posted June 11, 2010 All of the above! "Night vision" - people tend to think of the "night vision goggles" they see in the movies. I've seen too many instances where they think that a basic $20 bullet with a dozen IR LEDs will light up an entire yard like the daylight and let them see everything clearly. TVL is CCTV's equivalent to megapixels in the digital-still-camera market. With pocket cameras in particular, it's been an ongoing race to cram in (and advertise) more and more and more megapixels, with no consideration of how that adversely affects low-light performance. I've seen people who think a 15MP P&S camera will actually produce better pictures than a 10MP DSLR. Then they wonder why the pictures of their kid blowing out his birthday candles looks like shyte... by the same token, TVL has become something that most consumers don't actually understand, they just figure that more is better with no consideration of other factors, so the manufacturers tend to inflate the number as much as they can get away with... FPS... same thing, the "more is better" mentality takes over, without consideration of the trade-offs, or the actual REQUIREMENTS (yeah, 30fps looks nice... no, you don't NEED it all the time). The real kicker is that as much as some think the only way they'll get smooth, lifelike movement is at a full 30fps... PAL does it just fine at 25fps... and film is typically a mere 24fps (until you start getting into IMAX and technologies like that). The other one to watch out for is sellers pushing recognizable names... like how many times do we see here, people with "I have this Sony camera..." and "this one must be better, because it's a Sony camera". Well, no, it's not a Sony - it uses a Sony sensor that's the same Sony sensor as a zillion other cheap-ass cameras, as well as a number of better cameras that back it up with better processing. And sorry to say, just having the name "Sony" on it does not automatically make it "good" (this applies to a lot of different areas of electronics, BTW). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Securame 0 Posted June 11, 2010 H.264 if done properly has its advantages and in my opinion CAN look just as good as mpeg4. However, in my opinion a sub $500 dvr just isn't going to have the processing power to compress good quality h.264 video. Maybe I understand "good quality" different than you, but I use and have used plenty of sub $500 h.264 dvrs that I think are really good... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bpzle 0 Posted June 11, 2010 H.264 if done properly has its advantages and in my opinion CAN look just as good as mpeg4. However, in my opinion a sub $500 dvr just isn't going to have the processing power to compress good quality h.264 video. Maybe I understand "good quality" different than you, but I use and have used plenty of sub $500 h.264 dvrs that I think are really good... I tested several "h.264" DVRs over the past 2 years or so and had poor results in picture quality vs an MPEG4 based DVR. Care to expand on what makes/ models you've tested and liked? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ak357 0 Posted June 11, 2010 Maybe I understand "good quality" different than you, but I use and have used plenty of sub $500 h.264 dvrs that I think are really good... ---------------------------------------------------- We would love to see video samples Thx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted June 11, 2010 I tested several "h.264" DVRs over the past 2 years or so and had poor results in picture quality vs an MPEG4 based DVR. Care to expand on what makes/ models you've tested and liked? Yeah most of them are simply put, rubbish. The live quality normally isnt that bad, but the recording can be awful. Also even with Geovision their H.264 cannot match their Mpeg4. Most 4 channel stand alones are the budget DVR made by the manufacturer, so they will do what they can to make it as cheap as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Securame 0 Posted June 12, 2010 I tested several "h.264" DVRs over the past 2 years or so and had poor results in picture quality vs an MPEG4 based DVR. Care to expand on what makes/ models you've tested and liked? Ok, maybe I should not have said "really good", but just "good". Of course there are better DVRs, but for small 4 camera setups I think this 2 units are usually enough. They both do CIF real time, 2CIF 12fps, or 4CIF 6fps. Are you just speaking about image quality? Like, at the same resolution/fps, the MPEG4 recording looks way better than the H264 recording? Because I never compared side by side, but I have not noticed bad quality recordings with thiese H264 models, and they are surely budget sub $500 DVRs... http://www.hikvision.com/en/epro2.asp?id=240&classid=194&bgclassid=104&act=b&classname= http://www.cn-dvr.com/products/enproducts174.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bpzle 0 Posted June 12, 2010 Can you post stills from the videos? Preferably indoor/ outdoor day and night scenes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soundy 1 Posted June 12, 2010 Yeah most of them are simply put, rubbish. The live quality normally isnt that bad, but the recording can be awful. Aye, and there's the rub: if you're installing a DVR, it's usually because you're interested in the RECORDED video. Lots of times these cheap systems seem fine... until you really need the video, and then you discover that the clarity you need just isn't there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Securame 0 Posted June 12, 2010 Can you post stills from the videos?Preferably indoor/ outdoor day and night scenes? I'll give it a try, but I can't tell you when. I do have to do some tests with one of those models, too bad that I do not have any of the same manufacturers MPEG4 model so I can compare... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
