Who has had experience using an H.264 stand alone DVR.

[kandcorp 0]

Who has had experience using an H.264 compression stand alone DVR. What model did you use and what is your thoughts on it. Also, do you see this (H.264) compression being the sole method in the future of DVR's

[griffonsystems 0]

i have pilot tested a stand alone dvr from hikvision/aventura technologies. it was the 8 channel model. i was impressed with the d1 resolution recording and the 30fps but the gui was a bit frustrating and the unit didnt come with a cd or dvd burner - u could usb an external burner but i didnt try that out.

 

once someone comes up with a userfriendly gui on this compression it will be very good.

[rory 0]

May for internet and remote video, but i would see JPEG2000 or something similar to take over for local recording, as its higher quality and thats what most people buy a DVR for anyway. Once they can seperate the local recording and local video, from the remote video side, then it can work both ways. This is something Iview does by the way, where you can record and view local video in Wavelet for best quality, then stream video in Mpeg4 for faster video.

[kandcorp 0]

Hey griffon, did you get a chance to put that system online and tap it remotely? If so how was online viewing via client software and IE. I am really interested in that exact machine.

 

Thanks

[griffonsystems 0]

i didnt put it on the net but i will look at it over the weekend and see what i can do

[kandcorp 0]

Thank you very much. Let me know anything else you notice about this DVR.

[griffonsystems 0]

K,

 

i was hoping to get this done last weekend but it didnt happen.. i will try to see what i can do before the end of the month....you might even want to try and contact aventura and ask them if you can pilot one of the systems - thats what i did and they sent it to me free.

[kandcorp 0]

Well we should be getting our pilot unit here pretty soon. Its not coming from Aventura. I do appreciate any input you may have in the meantime though.

 

-Andrew

[kandcorp 0]

Oh yea, Griffon your website is looking good. Very simple yet professional and effective. Is it still under construction?

[cctv_down_under 0]

Here are my some thoughts on the differing compression options.

 

Motion JPEG (MJPEG).

Principle

All pictures in the video sequence are complete and JPEG-compressed

Pros

Any quality and resolution at any frame rate

Simple to encode and decode

Low latency

License free

easy to store, manage and use

Cons

Not a true video compression standard

Consumes bandwidth even when no motion is present

No support for synchronized sound

 

MPEG-2

 

Principle

Based on MPEG-1 compression

Extends with higher image resolution and quality

Adds new tools to achieve better compression

Pros

Real video compression (i.e., makes use of temporal redundancies)

License free

Supports higher resolution and quality

Cons

Limited bit rate, resolution and image quality

Vulnerable to information loss

Introduces latency

Complex to encode and decode

Frame rate fixed to 25 / 30 fps

Even more complex to encode and decode

Requires license fee for encoding and decoding

 

MPEG-4

 

Principle

Based on MPEG-1/MPEG-2 compression

Adds new tools to increase coding efficiency

Targets a wide range of resolutions, frame rates and bit rates

Adds object-based compression and coding of synthetic audio and video

Pros

As Per MPEG-2

Extremely versatile and flexible

Adjustable frame rate

Cons

As Per MPEG-2

A large number of profiles and levels (i.e., two MPEG-4:s are not necessarily alike)

Requires license fee for encoding and decoding

 

H.264 is a combination brainchild of the MPEG Group and the VCEG group and is a very high compression codec when people say that H.264 is actually MPEG4 they are somewhat correct. The ISO/IEC MPEG-4 Part 10 standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10) are technically identical, and the technology is also known as AVC, for Advanced Video Coding

 

H.264 is a high quality video compression algorithm and is suited for all types of applications with different ranges of bit rates. H.264 compressed video data can be stored inside AVI or OGG files with the option of saving the file with or without the audio data

[griffonsystems 0]

yeah my site was something i put together quickly myself

 

it still needs a lot of work - maybe ill tackle it over the holidays

[rory 0]

missed out Wavelet and JPEG2000

[kandcorp 0]

Well just found something out. Dont know if its 100% correct but it is from a very reliable chinese source.

 

Vendoma/Aventura/Hikvision's DVR that claim H.264 compression truly are not. There hasn't been many companies that have truly adopted H.264 compression on stand alones. Most of them utilize Mpeg4 Enhanced or an H.263.

 

-

[kandcorp 0]

H.264 is the most advanced video coding standard available today. It uses many new coding techniques not available in MPEG2, MPEG4 and H.263. This chart shows the evolution of video coding standards.

[kandcorp 0]

Sorry here is the link to the chart.

http://www.h263l.com/misc/standard.gif

[rory 0]

Yes, good for compression, but still low quality compared to others.

[CCTVmofo 0]

As far as I know, Nuvico's XG series uses H.264.

[kandcorp 0]

Mofo..have you used this DVR (nuvico XG) ?

[rory 0]

i know i shouldnt ask, but what does mofo stand for ... is it what we think it does?

[SteveSurf 0]

Here are my some thoughts on the differing compression options.

MPEG-2

 

Principle

Based on MPEG-1 compression

Extends with higher image resolution and quality

Adds new tools to achieve better compression

Pros

Real video compression (i.e., makes use of temporal redundancies)

License free

Supports higher resolution and quality

Cons

Limited bit rate, resolution and image quality

Vulnerable to information loss

Introduces latency

Complex to encode and decode

Frame rate fixed to 25 / 30 fps

Even more complex to encode and decode

Requires license fee for encoding and decoding

 

MPEG-4

 

Principle

Based on MPEG-1/MPEG-2 compression

Adds new tools to increase coding efficiency

Targets a wide range of resolutions, frame rates and bit rates

Adds object-based compression and coding of synthetic audio and video

Pros

As Per MPEG-2

Extremely versatile and flexible

Adjustable frame rate

Cons

As Per MPEG-2

A large number of profiles and levels (i.e., two MPEG-4:s are not necessarily alike)

Requires license fee for encoding and decoding

 

H.264 is a combination brainchild of the MPEG Group and the VCEG group and is a very high compression codec when people say that H.264 is actually MPEG4 they are somewhat correct. The ISO/IEC MPEG-4 Part 10 standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10) are technically identical, and the technology is also known as AVC, for Advanced Video Coding

 

H.264 is a high quality video compression algorithm and is suited for all types of applications with different ranges of bit rates. H.264 compressed video data can be stored inside AVI or OGG files with the option of saving the file with or without the audio data

 

I know this is an older post, but I have a few comments.

 

Regarding latency, either MPEG2 or MPEG4 Part 2 can have lower latency through I-frame insertion. Most MPEG4 encoders do not insert extra I-frames to keep the bandwidth usage down. I have found MPEG4 Part 2 encoders to introduce far more latency than their MPEG2 counterparts. Most MPEG4 systems have latencies of around 400~500 msec, while modified MPEG2 hovers around 100~150 msec, with far better image quality, often rivaling broadcast video.

 

And now a brief bandwidth comparison. After an initial burst, the MPEG2 stream settles down nicely. If your network cannot handle a brief burst of up to 1.5 times the original setting, you do not receive the video stream.

 

MPEG4, however, might look like a substantially lower bandwidth with a network display device that measures an average usage over time. However, on closer inspection or time interval magnification, there are frequent, regular data bursts that may result in packet loss should the network not be able to handle it. Packet loss can appear like blocks, often confused with digital artifacts.

 

Some best practices include checking the encoder or DVR on the network itself for evaluation. Using high level switches or routers will avoid bottlenecks. Finally, developing a set of test data or system template that you are familiar with is equally important with IP-based systems as with analog.

[kandcorp 0]

Steve surf_

What are your recommendations on a high level Swith and Router. What have you used and what has worked the best for you in regards to a networked DVR.

 

Thanks

[SteveSurf 0]

Steve surf_

What are your recommendations on a high level Swith and Router. What have you used and what has worked the best for you in regards to a networked DVR.

 

Thanks

 

These may be quite expensive, but most of the systems we're involved in have 4 or more DVRs. At least you can compare capabilities.

 

Layer 2: Cisco 2950

 

Layer 3: Cisco 3550 Cisco 3750

 

Core Layer 3: Cisco 6500

[cctv_down_under 0]

I am most certainly not an expert but:

 

Although most good I.P. webservers will allow you change settings for I Frame's and frame skip, it would be very rare to find that kind of setting in a standlone DVR which is the section that this post was made in.

 

I agree, and have seen many networks crash due to MPEG2 video streaming at maximums, I only just found a company that builds high quality network switches desinged (would you believe) just for CCTV use, they do not have problems when data is fully streamed to the maximum and have all the settings for advanced mulitcasting etc.

 

I only use Cisco where I can but when you need a few of these babies you can easily be more expensive than all the other equipment combined (and so it should) you do have to be very careful with the network gear you use and now I only use gear ready for POE (even though you can buy plug in devices).

 

A LOT of people only ever calculate the number of cams then work out a stream size and they think this is all, what about streaming to another redundant box, or the fact that somoene will want to review while those streams are happening or even FTP perhaps. If you want to stream live and review then there is a lot more traffic involved.

 

Network webservers are much more suitable as they can "Dual Stream" and this allows the ability to limit the bandwidth it also allows cams to be set to change streaming sizes at times when certain bandwidth intensive things will happen IE backup etc.

 

I agree that MPEG4 can be actually BIGGER in file size, especially on a moving PTZ camera, if any of you can do both compressions on a PTZ you may want to compare it because all the reference co-ordinates have to be sent and this takes up file size.

[Securitymaster 0]

Nice acesment Geeks, but also to take in consideration is that most infrastructures outhere where designed to handle only regular data networks. When you throw video and in some cases, audio in the mix, you can end up with a huge bottlenecks no matter what kind of compression the DVR uses, also, I have done some installations where there are more than 5 clients connected to the unit at one time, and the lag in just no acceptable, only remedy was to throw a second data line and a second router, bridged together to make the video suatible for use.

[cctv_down_under 0]

I agree with you completely, I can not tell you how many times I have had to go out to a networked CCTV site to find that they simply didnt cater for any headroom or were not using the correct equipment, it is even more common to not consider the maximum number of cameras on one NVR server and it is almost stupid to have wholesale companies selling "unlimited" camera connections, because it simply is not possible.

 

Bottleknecks are usually caused by bad design and I NEVER use an existing network if it can be avoided, it really is not that hard to set a seperate network up, therefore I ALWAYS recommend that it is run on a seperate network.

 

As for multiple connections this can definately be an issue, however if correctly multicasting this can somewhat be eliminated to an extent and I have seen several DVR's now that use a TWIN DVR policy to allow a workstation to take some of the webcasting load.

 

I strongly recommend webservers with local recording capacity (hdd) this way if a network is congested or fails it can send the data at a later time, most good NVR webservers can also detect congestion and adjust streams accordingly, it is recommended to use a dual streaming device that can connect to a switch that can alarm output when congestion is detected, this can then activate the device to record locally or send the second lesser stream through either hardware or software notification.

 

I am not a huge fan of I.P. solutions, however they have several major advantages and the main one being that they are portable, therefore you can move your control room at any time that you wish, they are also much easier to upgrade and they can stream with several codecs at several rates to several locations and can be individually set up.

 

I.P. is the future just not quite yet!!