viewing and recording different quality streams

B

bennuss

Getting the hang of it
May 26, 2015
103
6
Anyway to have the multiple cameras on on screen be the substream but when i click on a particular camera it switches to the main stream?
\
Also any way the main stream can be one quality but the record be another or is that set in the camera so no way to have it done?
 
bennuss said:
Anyway to have the multiple cameras on on screen be the substream but when i click on a particular camera it switches to the main stream?
\
Also any way the main stream can be one quality but the record be another or is that set in the camera so no way to have it done?
Click to expand...
No...You can however record and view different streams by setting up an identical cloned camera and change the path to the substream...
 
but no way to have it that when i click on that camera it switches to the main stream?
 
another feature request i guess. i have seen some dvrs that do that since in the small window on a multi vies page the lower resolution is fine.
not sure what you mean to clone the cameras. I should add it twice and then create a group of the main cameras and then one with the clones that read the substream?
 
bennuss said:
Anyway to have the multiple cameras on on screen be the substream but when i click on a particular camera it switches to the main stream?
Click to expand...

There is no way to do this with Blue Iris, but it is a feature I would really like to see some day.

It could potentially result in enormous CPU usage savings if Blue Iris was more sub-stream-aware. Consider that right now if you are running 10 cameras, all 2 megapixel at 30 fps. As far as I can tell, Blue Iris always decodes all incoming video streams. So Blue Iris is decoding (10 x 2 x 30 =) 600 million pixels per second. Each pixel takes 3 bytes, so if my calculations are correct, that is about 1.8 gigabytes of raw video data per second. Only the most powerful PCs stand a chance of handling that.

Now consider if Blue Iris only had to decode sub streams that are each 0.3 megapixel at 15 FPS. This would be (10 X 0.3 X 15 =) 45 million pixels per second. That is 0.135 gigabytes of raw video data, just 7.5% of the video data from the main streams. This load could be handled by a much lower power PC. These sub streams would be perfectly adequate for Blue Iris to use for motion detection and for live view camera grids. The high resolution main streams would only ever need to be decoded when someone wanted to view the camera in full screen.

bennuss said:
Also any way the main stream can be one quality but the record be another or is that set in the camera so no way to have it done?
Click to expand...

The main stream is produced by the camera and Blue Iris has no control over it. You can have Blue Iris re-encode the video to something with a lower bit rate for recording, but most people use direct to disc now which means the recorded stream is exactly the same quality as the camera's main stream.

bennuss said:
another feature request i guess. i have seen some dvrs that do that since in the small window on a multi vies page the lower resolution is fine.
not sure what you mean to clone the cameras. I should add it twice and then create a group of the main cameras and then one with the clones that read the substream?
Click to expand...

There is currently little reason to load a sub stream along with a main stream for the same camera in Blue Iris. The only reason I can think of is if you wanted to record the sub stream continuously (which uses less disk space since sub streams are typically much smaller than main streams). You can use the camera export/import features to help you create a clone of a camera.

Consider that Blue Iris existed long before sub streams became a common thing. With just one guy to develop and support Blue Iris, it really is no surprise that the ability to fully utilize sub streams never made it into the program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nejakejnick and fenderman
Hard to believe that only one guy develops it, that's pretty bad bus factor.

Anyways, has he ever said anything about it? Is it on the roadmap? It sounds like a basic feature to me.
 
nejakejnick said:
Hard to believe that only one guy develops it, that's pretty bad bus factor.

Anyways, has he ever said anything about it? Is it on the roadmap? It sounds like a basic feature to me.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by bus factor?
You can manually do it by pulling separate streams...the only reason to have this function save cpu resources...you can email the developer to ask if this is in the works or not. He is always working on new functions and features.
 
fenderman said:
What do you mean by bus factor?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

I configured those substreams, but I really miss a switch to the main stream and basically the way IVMS 4200 works.
I will try to configure motion detection on the preview, and trigger a camera group which contains the main stream, and set a delay 5 secs to the main stream - that way the event should start before the action begins - which is another feature I want...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nejakejnick said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

I configured those substreams, but I really miss a switch to the main stream and basically the way IVMS 4200 works. I will try to configure motion detection on the preview, and trigger a camera group which contains the main stream...
Click to expand...
Its only 60 dollars...it will still work even if ken drops dead you simply wont get any new features. If a team of developers worked on this, you would be paying a per camera license fee.
Are you seeing any significant cpu savings while using substreams but recording primary streams? When i tested it a while back the difference if any was negligible.
The only way to get a feature added is to ask for it. So email support.
 
Yes, the price is awesome, having to buy a new PC and pay more of electric bills not so much.
I tried to measure some things, not sure if my measurements are totally off because of the demo overlay text - that would be stupid...




Vista 32bit, aero disabled, really slow Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200, measured average cpu time percentage for ~1 min by 'perfmon', max value is probably 200%...


substream 352*288 15fps (motion detection, direct record, constant bitrate ~60kB/s)
-minimized 6%
-top 9.5%


main stream 1920*1080 15fps (motion detection, direct record, variable bitrate ~60kB/s)
-minimized 43%
-top 60% for small window, 70% for big one


hidden main stream (direct record, variable bitrate), substream (motion detection)
-minimized 43%
-top 50%


main stream (direct record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 42%
-top 60% for small window, 70% for big one


hidden main stream (direct record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 41%
-top 42%


main stream (no record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 42%
-top 60% for small window


main stream (no record, constant bitrate ~500kB/s)
-minimized 52%
-top 66% for small window





It seems that:
- motion detection on the main stream is cheap
- variable bitrate saves a lot of cpu
- just enabling of the main stream is expensive
- showing substream in the main window would help, especially with many cameras
- I need to test it with a full version
 
nejakejnick said:
Yes, the price is awesome, having to buy a new PC and pay more of electric bills not so much.
I tried to measure some things, not sure if my measurements are totally off because of the demo overlay text - that would be stupid...




Vista 32bit, aero disabled, really slow Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200, measured average cpu time percentage for ~1 min by 'perfmon', max value is probably 200%...


substream 352*288 15fps (motion detection, direct record, constant bitrate ~60kB/s)
-minimized 6%
-top 9.5%


main stream 1920*1080 15fps (motion detection, direct record, variable bitrate ~60kB/s)
-minimized 43%
-top 60% for small window, 70% for big one


hidden main stream (direct record, variable bitrate), substream (motion detection)
-minimized 43%
-top 50%


main stream (direct record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 42%
-top 60% for small window, 70% for big one


hidden main stream (direct record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 41%
-top 42%


main stream (no record, variable bitrate)
-minimized 42%
-top 60% for small window


main stream (no record, constant bitrate ~500kB/s)
-minimized 52%
-top 66% for small window





It seems that:
- motion detection on the main stream is cheap
- variable bitrate saves a lot of cpu
- just enabling of the main stream is expensive
- showing substream in the main window would help, especially with many cameras
- I need to test it with a full version
Click to expand...
Using the full version with direct to disk will drop cpu consumption...even tough direct to disk seems to work in the demo, there is added cpu consumption using the demo, i have confirmed this on two machines.
the cpu you are using is weak, and will not sustain multiple 2/3 megapixel cameras.
i5 haswell pc's which are pretty efficient can be had for 300, i7's for 430-500, with full three year warranties.
Still way cheaper than paying per license, to get the features in bi you are looking at at least the 100 dollar per camera license of exacq, milestone etc...
 
fenderman said:
Using the full version with direct to disk will drop cpu consumption...even tough direct to disk seems to work in the demo, there is added cpu consumption using the demo, i have confirmed this on two machines.
the cpu you are using is weak, and will not sustain multiple 2/3 megapixel cameras.
i5 haswell pc's which are pretty efficient can be had for 300, i7's for 430-500, with full three year warranties.
Still way cheaper than paying per license, to get the features in bi you are looking at at least the 100 dollar per camera license of exacq, milestone etc...
Click to expand...

That sounds strange, because playback does not have any overlay demo text.

The price in my country would be actually 630 USD for i7-4790K, cheapest mobo, 4GB DDR3, Seasonic 350W, Windows 7, no case, no HDD. And the BlueIris itself which is sold for 50USD on wrightwoodsurveillance costs 80 USD in the official eshop - there are no licence terms, but I assume it is only for version 4, right? :rolleyes:
 
I know it's strange... But I have confirmed it and others mention it as well... Do you need an i7, how many cameras will you be using? What resolution? Blue iris is 60 dollars at the official site... You need to ask Wrightwood what version they are selling... Probably 4.

Sent via Taptalk
 
I may have 11x 3mpx hikvsions, most of them in very low fps, I have one i5-4590 here so I will test how it goes.
I am not even sure if i7 is really worth it, it should handle x264 30% faster, but I have not seen any benchmarks with Blue Iris. I guess I will have to make one. :)

It is 59.95 + 21% VAT = 72,5 USD, but the price is in EUR, so it is actually 80 USD.:laugh:
Wrightwood specifies it as 4, the official site not.
 
nejakejnick said:
I may have 11x 3mpx hikvsions, most of them in very low fps, I have one i5-4590 here so I will test how it goes.
I am not even sure if i7 is really worth it, it should handle x264 30% faster, but I have not seen any benchmarks with Blue Iris. I guess I will have to make one. :)

It is 59.95 + 21% VAT = 72,5 USD, but the price is in EUR, so it is actually 80 USD.:laugh:
Wrightwood specifies it as 4, the official site not.
Click to expand...
The version being sold on the blue iris website is obviously the latest BI4...I personally like to buy from the developer directly.
 
So using registered version helped a little bit (v4.6.1.2 now):

1920*1080 15fps (direct record, variable bitrate)
-hidden 27% vs 42% before
-small window 44% vs 60% before
-hidden with motion detection: 29% vs 43% before

-constant bitrate minimized, no motion detection, no recording: 43% vs 52% before

In comparison iVMS 4200 PCNVR:
record without viewing: 0,03%
record + substream view: 11%


Emailed Ken about it...
 
nejakejnick said:
So using registered version helped a little bit (v4.6.1.2 now):

1920*1080 15fps (direct record, variable bitrate)
-hidden 27% vs 42% before
-small window 44% vs 60% before
-hidden with motion detection: 29% vs 43% before

-constant bitrate minimized, no motion detection, no recording: 43% vs 52% before

In comparison iVMS 4200 PCNVR:
record without viewing: 0,03%
record + substream view: 11%


Emailed Ken about it...
Click to expand...

And? Did Ken respond?
 
Thanks for updating. I think it would be a nice addition. Anything to limit the hardware requirement is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom