Will i save a lot of HDD if I use 640x480 instead 720x480?

[osity 0]

Just wondering if the switching to a lower resolution will give me more recording days.

 

I am currently getting about 18 days with 4 channels recording at 720x480 set to 30FPS. I have about 900GB total HDD space.

 

Video is currently set to advanced MPEG4. I also have the option to use H264, but dont know if i should switch to it.

[rory 0]

switch it to 640x480, you should see a big difference.

[WirelessEye 0]

If it can hadle it, switch to H.264. Better video quality and less space required for storage than MPEG-4.

[rory 0]

If its Geo, dont switch to H2.64, Geo's MPEG4 is better quality than its H2.64.

[securitymonster 0]

What DVR are you using?

[WirelessEye 0]

Wow that's wierd. Why would Geo's Mpeg4 be better than H.264? The definition of H.264 is Mpeg4-10 and is dramtically better in quality and smaller in size. Perhaps Geo has encoder problems?

[rory 0]

No idea, but thats the way it is.

Ive seen other H2.64 DVRs also and the quality was much lower.

For Remote video though it is fine.

[WirelessEye 0]

Interesting. H.264 is broadcast quality encoding. On some of our stuff, H.264 looks as good if not better than MJPEG. (Not to mention the size of the video is 1/15th of the size.)

[rory 0]

Ive seen other H.264 though and it also looks worst than Wavelet and Mpeg4.

Noone has yet provided any demos that proves otherwise. Lots of talk though

[Metal Shaper Man 0]

Isn’t some of the picture quality relative to recording between frame or field plus, the image quality settings?

[WirelessEye 0]

Then why are HD DVD, Blue-ray, BBC HD, DirecTV, Dish Network, Euro1080, ProSieben HD & Sat1 HD, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG,

SkyHD, SVT HD, etc. are using H.264-- and not MPEG-4 or Wavelet.

 

Perhaps they could give you a demo so that you won't think it's all talk.

[rory 0]

Then why are HD DVD, Blue-ray, BBC HD, DirecTV, Dish Network, Euro1080, ProSieben HD & Sat1 HD, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG,

SkyHD, SVT HD, etc. are using H.264-- and not MPEG-4 or Wavelet.

 

Perhaps they could give you a demo so that you won't think it's all talk.

 

No idea what CCTV or IP Video companies they are, but sure.

I know what DishNet and DirectTV is, but that isn't related to CCTV.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Guest

[CollinR 0]

I have had nothing but bad with H.264 too... Several manufacturers, CCTV and home theaters (much more quality critical!!!).

 

It all comes down to how much bitrate, most people want H.264 for the smaller filesize and thats it.

[WirelessEye 0]

My mistake, I thought that streamed video had a lot to do with CCTV and IP Video. Many of the Broadcast companies are switching to H.264 from MPEG-2 (Broadcast Quality) because they are they are nearly identical in quality and this allows them to up their resolutions to HD without increasing the video streams size. The same is true with CCTV and IP Video. Or is MPEG-4 better quality than MPEG-2 now also?

 

I believe your bad experiences with H.264 are related to the hardware you are using.

[rory 0]

I believe your bad experiences with H.264 are related to the hardware you are using.

 

Its probably just the DVR codecs from Asia then ..

[VST_Man 1]

agree with all...............codecs are getting better but the final product is in the equipment used to transmit that quality. software development has been ahead of the hardware and some manufactures are running that nifty codec ontop of older hardware which is like putting a race engine inside a junker...it's still a junker.

[WirelessEye 0]

Agreed. The Sony IP cameras that have H.264 built in have beautiful quality in H.264, but are limited to 10FPS @ full resolution due to the massive processing power needed to encode, so it is a tradeoff.

[Thomas 0]

The Codec is just a standard. I can tell the codec to be really aggressive in encoding (smaller file size, poorer image quality) or I can be less aggressive in encoding (larger file size, better image). Not all H.264 video is going to be the same. There isn't a flat standard for X video quality, it's all about what the codec is set to.

 

It's quite possible that all of the H.264 video that Rory has seen is crap and yet Direct TV's isn't. DirectTV may be using much, much less aggressive encoding then most DVR's using it.

[osity 0]

The DVR I'm using is the NV5000 by Avermedia.

 

I've switched to h.264 and will post the differences when i get a change to check them out.

[woodyads 0]

Don't forget camera movement. If your cameras are not mounted on solid objects i.e. comms masts, light poles, they will create larger files.

[osity 0]

I'm not sure what you mean by that last post. I find that i get more storage although the quality seems a bit more blurry to me.

[woodyads 0]

If your cameras are effected by wind movement. For instance if they are mounted on a pole as opposed to the side of a building, Then the codec is not as efficient in encoding the picture.

 

Codec's only need change the pixels in the picture that change. If nothing in the picture changes then they are very efficient.

 

I had some cameras mounted on the leg of a comms mast. As the mast swayed in the wind as all masts do. The legs twisted changing the direction of the camera. I fixed this by building an new mounting that attached to two legs eliminating the twist. This halved the bandwidth of the camera.