benbencha 0 Posted July 12, 2007 motion jpeg is a tradditional compressing technology, with big size file. Its advantagte is low cost and acceptable on court. Its shortage is need big storage HDD and poor network transimitting. mpeg-4 a new technology, with high compressing capability. Its advantage is small file size, good at saving storage space and transmitting via network. But it has shortage too, high cost and not acceptable on court. Which technology is popular or what kind of applications will you use mpeg-4? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
survtech 0 Posted July 12, 2007 Who says MPEG-4 (or any MPEG for that matter) is not admissable in court? I've never heard that. Most casinos use MPEG in one form or another to record their cameras. We would not use anything that would not hold up in court. When you are recording 1000+ cameras at 4CIF or D1, MJPEG is not an option. The cost for the 250TB of storage we needed for MPEG-2 was close to $1M. MJPEG would require at least 3-4 times that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zmxtech 0 Posted July 12, 2007 have heard similar here in Australia sounds like foo to me. Also there must be a certain FPS also ? would be nice to find out for each country if anyone legal knows z Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Flannel 0 Posted July 13, 2007 Actually, I heard a salesman trying to sell us a Dedicated Micros DVR say they only used Jpegs because the compressed video wasn't admissable in court. Might be just a sales tactic, cause I've only heard that once. Could they mean some countries don't allow it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kensplace 0 Posted July 13, 2007 Jpegs are compressed images also, the salesman was just talking crap if he said compressed video is not admissable but jpegs are... Both use compression and are therefore technically not the exact image that was captured... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Flannel 0 Posted July 13, 2007 As I recall him saying, each jpeg frame was a complete image, while compressed video only updated the changes in the image, and didn't record the full image every frame. That was why he was saying that. He also had video that showed another DVR mess up doing it's compression and leave half a car in the road after it drove by. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
survtech 0 Posted July 13, 2007 As I recall him saying, each jpeg frame was a complete image, while compressed video only updated the changes in the image, and didn't record the full image every frame. That was why he was saying that. He also had video that showed another DVR mess up doing it's compression and leave half a car in the road after it drove by. Anything to make a sale. Still AFAIK, there has never been an instance where a streaming compression codec has been successfully been challenged in court. That includes all of the MPEGs, Wavelet, h.261/263/264 and MJPEG. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daryl733 0 Posted July 27, 2007 Haa.. and i have MJPEG DVR with image corrupted also. Please. all digital recorder have that problem due to storage issues. Find me a recording device with 0% corruption record. VCR, Digital Tape, Harddisk, CD, DVR all will have that issues when there're data corruptoin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chad_cooper 0 Posted July 30, 2007 Ben, I would like to add to your thread: that the inability to use of mpeg4 in court HAS NOT been proven in any high court to my knowledge. If you can give me one court case where it has been dismissed due to the mpeg4 or where you found your information I would love to see it. This has been a myth in the industry for years now dating back to wavelet compression technology. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CollinR 0 Posted August 1, 2007 They have used VCR tapes in court, there is absolutley no protection on those. Also the analog cameras are interlaced so no matter what you do with an analog camera you can't really have a full frame. Few in the court system have the technical knowledge to care about the differences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chad_cooper 0 Posted August 1, 2007 A analog Field would be the same as a Digital PPS. Removal of the blank interlace would still be really a full picture. Hence usabel in court. A analog video tape can be authenticated using electronic means of checking the continuity of the video. hence used in court. Thanks, Chad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CollinR 0 Posted August 1, 2007 Find an instance of MPEG4 being tossed from court due to the technology used to protect the video... EDIT: If you think for just a short period you can't find a way around the VCR continuity tests... Nobody cuts tape anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcs 0 Posted August 4, 2007 As long as its watermarked, how can it not be admisable in court? WTF- joke I have never had anything the cops have backed up of anyone of my systems been knocked back. Have been using geo since 03 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted August 4, 2007 it may not be acceptable in court in certain countries, such as the one ben is from. Though I believe ben may be a manufacturer in China, so perhaps it is just a way to push his companies MJpeg DVRS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 4, 2007 have heard similar here in Australia sounds like foo to me.Also there must be a certain FPS also ? would be nice to find out for each country if anyone legal knows z In Australia Mpeg4 and H.264 is ok for evidence in court, even AFB uses H.264 for something they use in court, so I think that this is just a rumor then a fact. But it would be intresting to hear stories about locally rules and customs. Like here in Norway there is illegal to store video files more then 7 days and audio is strictly prohibit. JD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
