Running higher bitrates and CBR instead of VBR usually results in better images.
8192 is a good bitrate to start for a 4MP camera. 4096 is a good starting point for 2MP, and 16,384 is a good starting point for 8MP.
The lower the bitrate, the less the quality of the image, and the higher the bitrate, the higher the quality, but to a point.
Sure you can run a 2MP at 16,000 bitrate but to most people they won't see a visual difference between that or 4,000, but the higher bitrate will consume storage at 4 times the rate.
So it is a balance act for your field of view to go up and down the bitrate until you find the sweet spot where increasing it doesn't show an improvement and decreasing it would show a degradation.
Many here will prefer H264 over H265.
This will explain H264 versus H265 a little better.
H265 in theory provides more storage as it compresses differently, but part of that compression means it macro blocks big areas of the image that it thinks isn't moving. However, it also takes more processing power of the already small CPU in the camera and that can be problematic if someone is maxing out the camera in other areas like FPS and then it stutters.
In theory it is supposed to need 30% less storage than H264, but most of us have found it isn't that much. My savings were less than few minutes per day. And to my eye and others that I showed clips to and just said do you like video 1 or video 2 better, everyone thought the H264 provided a better image.
The left image is H264, so all the blocks are the same size corresponding to the resolution of the camera. H265 takes areas that it doesn't think has motion and makes them into bigger blocks and in doing so lessens the resolution yet increases the camera CPU demand to develop these larger blocks.
In theory H265 is supposed to need half the bitrate because of the macroblocking. But if there is a lot of motion in the image, then it becomes a pixelated mess until the codec catches up to the motion. The only way to get around that is a higher bitrate. But if you need to run the same bitrate for H265 as you do H264, then the storage savings is zero. Storage is computed based on multiplying bitrate, FPS, and resolution.
In my testing I have one camera that sees a parked car in front of my house. H265 sees that the car isn't moving, so it macroblocks the whole car and surrounding area. Then the car owner walked up to the car and got in and the motion is missed because of the macroblock being so large. Or if it catches it, because the bitrate is low, it is a pixelated mess during the critical capture point and by the time H265 adjusts to there is now motion, the ideal capture is missed.
In my case, the car is clear and defined in H264, but is blurry and soft edges in H265.
Digital zooming is never really good and not something we recommend, but you stand a better chance of some digital zoom with H264 rather than a large macroblocked H265. I can digital zoom on my overview camera and kinda make out the address number of the house across the street with H264, but not a chance with H265 as it macroblocked his whole house.
H265 is one of those theory things that sounds good, but reality use is much different.
Some people have a field of view or goals that allow H265 to be sufficient for their needs.
As always, YMMV.
