Digital Video Surveillance: Debunking the Myth of MPEG
Posted on Mon, May 23, 2011
By Michael Brown, Applications Engineer at ASG
I recently came across an article that I wanted to share with the ASG reading audience to find out what you, in the industry, think of this issue. The article The Myth of MPEG in Court is something that has been argued for a while now and I feel that we need to debunk this myth once and for all.
The Myth
It is important to understand that the compression technique is not what validates the video as being reliable for security and surveillance but instead it’s many factors such as resolution, field of view, lighting, and most importantly watermarking and procedures for proper export and handling of the video as evidence.
The Value
For most, the value of storage in business, when confronted with a video solution, is estimated at 30% of the overall project. Understanding and choosing the right video compression technology is critical. Over the last 5 years Motion JPEG (MJPEG) and MPEG4 Part 2 (MPEG4) have dominated the market place. With MPEG4, the estimated 50% storage and bandwidth consumption savings compared to MJPEG were thought to be too good to be true. The MPEG4 codec was often under attack. Some stated that the technology doesn’t hold up in court or that it wasn’t as reliable as MJPEG. As a result, users were moved to a solution that required them to purchase enough storage and network bandwidth to support MJPEG. In some cases, a company ends up having to spend more money after the close of a video project because the job specification was to use MPEG4. But a decision based on the myth regarding the reliability of the video caused the user to change the video to MJPEG. The user then finds out the 90 day retention specified in the original scope of work has now been cut in half and requires more money to meet the storage and network bandwidth demand for MJPEG.
The Solution
This type of video capture works across all verticals and should be based on per camera, per field of view application basis. It works much better than analog because you can increase frame rates without compromising image resolution. Now with the popularity of MPEG4 part 10/ H.264 (H.264) we are seeing this play out all over again. With H.264 you can save up to 80% on your overall video storage and bandwidth requirements compared to MJPEG and 30% in comparison to MPEG4 . And with H.264 bandwidth, storage is not the limiting factor anymore, making video cloud hosting and sending-receiving live surveillance and recorded video to your smart phone a reality. But still the myths and rumors that once surrounded MPEG 4 Part 2 are now being used with MPEG 4 Part 10/H.264.
It is our job as a solutions provider to help the end user understand the difference in technologies and their applications. With video compression techniques it is important to design a solution that fits a client’s needs which may include H.264, MJPEG, MPEG4, proprietary and, even, analog video options and to debunk the myths and validate the rumors surrounding some of these technologies.
Where do you stand on this issue?