Re: H264 or MJPG

[ant <blowback@xxxxxxxxx>]

H.264 is a video compression algorithm. MJPEG is just a bunch of
JPEGs, one after another. So the latter will use a lot more bandwidth
and storage.

The "MJPEG is better for fast moving objects" argument is
nonsense.
Other MJPEG arguments (generally mooted by camera manufacturers who
only support MJPEG) are that the image quality is better, and that the
latency is lower. In the former case they like to disregard any
bandwidth constraints and compare low-compression JPEGs with low
bitrate compressed video. The latency issue is certainly valid, cheapo
network cameras with H.264 or equivalent can introduce a second or two
of latency on top of the network latency, so if you want to do
motion-tracking or really responsive PTZ it's a better option.

Cameras with H.264 codecs in 'em also tend to be more expensive, and
in my experience an H.264 camera will usually do MJPEG also.

Hope that helps!

ant


On 15 February 2013 13:03, Dave McLaughlin
<dave_mclaughlin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> What is the difference in camera's with either H264 or MJPG
compression?
>
>
>
> I am looking at a couple of Foscam units and there is a choice is H264
or
> MJPG and the price for the H264 model is higher (suspect this is due
to the
> licencing cost as hardware looks the same)
>
>
>
> According to a search, H264 is better quality but MJPG is better for
fast
> moving objects but I would rather hear from someone who has used both
or who
> knows the advantages.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


------------------------------------

<*> Join the Automated Home Forums
http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/vbulletin/