FPS vs. IPS

[cctv_down_under 0]

I tottaly disagree with you rory, the geo remote software is not bad at all, depends on what you use.

 

did you use..

Multicast, TCP Client, Webcam, PDA, Center V1, or Center V2?

 

I was aware of the resolution thanks rory, just was making a point of the Software Interlace... post a screen shot of your customised Geo.. god knows they cant design good looking ones.

[DataAve 0]

Geo's software runs like they run it's company. It's donglicious

[cctvron 0]

I have always thought that FPS was in reference to the MPEG technologie and IPS was to JPEG. With MPEG4 for example you may have 30-40 Frames that rely on a reference frame to be viewed. If you lose that reference Frame you could lose the next 30-40 Frames of video. JPEG is an Image not relying on a reference frame or reference image. Therefore if you are recording in JPEG vs. MPEG you are recording IPS vs. FPS. JPEG Motion has a much higher compression rate, but you will won't lose video like you will in MPEG4. If I lose an Image with JPEG that's all I lose, but if I lose the reference frame in MPEG4, I could lose the next 2 seconds to 2 minutes of video. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong with the FPS, IPS thing.

[rory 0]

Sorry CCTV .. regardless of the GUI. Im selling the cards and im still going to be honest here, and im not saying dont buy them:

 

GeoVision to me, has no useful Remote Software by default:

 

ActiveX Control (webCam) - Slowest I have ever seen, worst to work with next to eclipse. You require 256 upload speed or up, preferably 384 and higher. It connects to each camera individually which just slows it down even more.

 

Remote View: Connects fast, thats it, it is featureless and terrible quality, no matter whether you turn the quality level up in preferences.

 

Center V2 - ??? Never worked properly. Is of no use to the average user.

 

The rest, never touched. WebCam being the most common used.

Iview knocks it off the wall for remote video. Iview even tackles GEs Remote Video, and even Eclipse knocks it over.

 

Now, it has great local video quality, and obviously a ton of useless local features, nevertheless it does have the features. But for "just a software company", and the cards being as good as they are, they could do alot better.

 

Rory

Edited August 8, 2005 by Guest

[MetzLyov 0]

Hey guys,

 

Thanks for all the inputs... In the nutshell, here is what we established so far:

 

1 Frame Per Second = 2 Images Per Second - Each "frame" actually contains two images separated in time by approx 1/60 second

 

2 Images Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

1 Field Per Second = 1 Image Per Second

 

1 Picture Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

1 Page Per Second = 1 Picture Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

I think this is a very good summary for the original quesion. Is this correct?

 

Levon

[Doug 0]

Its not how I understand it, my summary would be

 

1 Frame per second = 1 Image per second = 1 picture per second = 2 fields per second

 

 

 

Doug

 

Hey guys,

 

Thanks for all the inputs... In the nutshell, here is what we established so far:

 

1 Frame Per Second = 2 Images Per Second - Each "frame" actually contains two images separated in time by approx 1/60 second

 

2 Images Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

1 Field Per Second = 1 Image Per Second

 

1 Picture Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

1 Page Per Second = 1 Picture Per Second = 1 Frame Per Second

 

I think this is a very good summary for the original quesion. Is this correct?

 

Levon

[MetzLyov 0]

Ok Doug... I read it somehow different through another spec sheet - Each "frame" actually contains two images separated in time by approx 1/60 s.

 

So, what is the difference between FPS (frames per second) and IPS (Images per second) that was my original question??

 

I understand that this verbiage is loosley used by many manufacturers and dependent on the compression they use, they imply one of these descriptions.. Also what is very important to note is that when manufacturers stipulate that "their compression is better", it is not true. Regardless which compression method they use, all they do is modify the software portion less than few percentage points that stores such video and because of such a modification, they liked to call it their own... Then their marketing people take over, most of which do not have the basic knowledge anyway, and then they interpret it to what they feel it should say, rather the actual facts...

 

Levon

[Doug 0]

I get the feeling that you could ask ten different people and get ten different answers, I could be wrong but I have always taken images per second and frames per second to be the same, the only confusion I have seen is where the term FPS is used to describe both fields and frames per second. One frame (or image) being two fields. Its entirely possible that its me thats confused and that my understanding of an image and a frame being the same is wrong.

 

Doug

 

Ok Doug... I read it somehow different through another spec sheet - Each "frame" actually contains two images separated in time by approx 1/60 s.

 

So, what is the difference between FPS (frames per second) and IPS (Images per second) that was my original question??

 

I understand that this verbiage is loosley used by many manufacturers and dependent on the compression they use, they imply one of these descriptions.. Also what is very important to note is that when manufacturers stipulate that "their compression is better", it is not true. Regardless which compression method they use, all they do is modify the software portion less than few percentage points that stores such video and because of such a modification, they liked to call it their own... Then their marketing people take over, most of which do not have the basic knowledge anyway, and then they interpret it to what they feel it should say, rather the actual facts...

 

Levon

[MetzLyov 0]

Doug, do you see the confusion? If I were to talk to 100 professional, each and everyone of them will give you 100 different (not exactly 100) versions of their understanding...

 

Recently I cornered a manufacturer on their claims of 480 IPS DVR and then you read 480Frames Per Second mixed within the same text and then they used 480 Fields per second on one of their other paragraphs... This is a major manufacturer... Well, when I pressed the issue, I had their engineer who designs these circutries or at least approves them (nobody can claim that they designed a new circuitry anyway) and he stessed that their box is a true 120 Frames Per Second box and has nothing to do with marketing hype... Then I went to their marketing department for explanation and their take, well it all depends how the end users perceive on this terminology and besides, customer do not buy because of this type of resolution, rather they buy because it is a major brand... I was surprised on their attitude and then took it directly with the head of the overall development department... I do not have to tell you how quickly the specs were corrected to show 120 frames per second and it happened in less than 24 hours...

 

What I learned and I hope that I am relaying this correctly is that read the specs very carefully and when you are selling DVRs, stay with the accurate information, rather marketing hype generated by manufacturers. Your customers will appreciate your honesty, the inegrity and will improve your reputation - and reputation is the only thing we have in this industry and nothing else... - it takes lifetime to earn it and then it takes a simple mistake to destroy it all...

 

Levon

[cctv_down_under 0]

Doug's explanation is what I believed

[MetzLyov 0]

Ok, is there any technical information available that anyone may know? I do not mean spec sheets from manufacturers, as each and everyone will give you their own version and explanations...

 

I have been gathering a lot of information from different sources, libraries, university sources, design teams, etc.... I may be pushing this too much, but I think this is a very important but yet, very misunderstood set of terminology that is being used very broad basis, but without all the specifics...

 

Wouldn't it great that we all knew exactly what these keywords mean? How about being able to explain to all our customers exactly what they are, rather what the manufacturers think it is... Everytime we address this issue with any manufacturer, they take is that we all suppose to know this, however the main reason behind their inability to answer this type of questions is that they do not even know... Unless you talk to the development team of every manufacturer, experts that will give you the reality, the marketing people are just what they are, full of ......

 

Levon

[rory 0]

ill check my book, though im sure a couple of them probably wasnt in it when it was printed.

[DataAve 0]

http://www.dvss-dvr.com/discussion.htm

[cctvfan 0]

My understanding is the same as Doug's, which he has nicely summarized earlier:

 

1 Frame per second = 1 Image per second = 1 picture per second = 2 fields per second

 

The above is always true when people (incl. manufacturers) are "honest". I can think of these scenarios where they have the opportunity of becoming "dishonest" or at least vague/misleading ...

 

a) Fields being elevated to be called "images". Some may argue that a field is still considered an "image" visually, except that it contains only the odd or even lines. Typically people would claim a system to be 120ips where in reality it's only 60 frame/s or 60picture/s.

 

b) Some DVRs throw away one of the two fields when recording, and only write the odd or even fields to disk. A bonus of doing so is the motion blur problem while in pause mode(due to time difference between odd/even samples, unless the CCD is progressive scan) is eliminated. Now, the DVR manufacturers can boldly advertise a 120 field/s recording speed as 120 pictutre/s or 120 frame/s, because a single field is exactly what a frame is composed of (given one of the two fields is discarded).

 

The above is just my humble understanding though.

[MetzLyov 0]

Thanks guys...

 

Levon

[Cooperman 0]

The main problem is that too many manufacturers are quite happy to be deliberately vague or deceptive.

 

It could be argued that a displayed 'frame' or a displayed 'field' could be taken as one of 'x' "Images" per second.

 

The only obvious difference is that a frame would have twice the vertical resolution of a field (given that 50% of the frame information is missing when a single field is displayed).

 

Personally, I would be happy if ..... manufacturers all agreed to use the term "Frames per second" (i.e. maximum resolution) and "Images per second" to mean exactly the same thing.

 

In my dreams

[MetzLyov 0]

Coop, I couldn't agree more man

 

But, they all make money using such confusion, therefore why change?? What I am refering to is an industry standard (presently nonexistent) - similar is what the PC business end up doing and over time, they all are adhering to such standards...

 

As you said, in our dreams....

 

Levon

[Cooperman 0]

If there was serious money in confusion, I should be filthy rich by know; I've been confused for years!

 

Maybe there's just no justice

[cctvfan 0]

Talking about manufacturer's honesty, Panasonic has nothing to hide about what they actually mean by "image" or ips in each instance... See this bullet at the link below.

 

"System Record Rates of 60ips (field), 30ips (frame), or 120ips (SIF) ..."

 

http://www.panasonic.ca/English/Broadcast/security/recorders/digital/wjhd316.asp

[ad123 0]

Here is what I have gotten from our Engineer, if you are ready for the details:

A sensor scans an picture in lines, it scans 240 lines (NTSC) to form an image.

then 1 IPS=1 F(frame)PS=1 F(Field)PS=1 PPS

 

Now if the picture is large and requires more than 240 line, the sensor scan the first set of 240 lines (the odd field), then scans the other set (even field) and combines the sets of lines (or fields) to form an image. In this case, 1 IPS=1 F(frame)PS=2 F(Field)PS=1 PPS.

 

VCR Inc. always use frame per second in the specs. I am quite shocked that Field Per Second are being used in some other product specs. This marketing strategy does confuse the market and leads to unfair comparisions by the consumers.

One suggestion: if the resolution on the spec is claimed to be 360 x 240, there is no need for further question because it takes 240 lines for an image anyway. If the specs claiming video reolutions of 680x480 or more, please do ask more questions regarding FPS.

 

Confused? yet more to follow: I also have come across some claims regarding the resolution that has no relation to the actual image, but rather the display resolution of the monitor.

[MetzLyov 0]

AD, do you see why I started this thread? At least we have a better understanding now than before...

 

Levon