I remember when H.265+ was Da Big Thang. Now, most do not recommend it's use. What should the standard be?

[Holbs]

I have not much tinkered with any bitrates or codecs for over a year when the H.265+ (or maybe no "+", I forget... I'm at work and cannot log into the cameras to see what they are set at).. figuring the saving of HD space warranted the use of the latest greatest codecs without any difference from earlier H.26x codecs.
Lately, I see the most recommended opinion is to use H.264+ or even H.264 instead of the latest greatest codec. Please forgive my misquotations on the different codecs use of "+" and "H" as haven't kept up to date on pro's/con's of each in the last year.
But please share your reasoning and personal experience of using the codecs you prefer. This will be helpful for future new folk learning what to set their systems up as well.

 

[sebastiantombs]

I tried H265 and found no significant savings in disk space versus H264. There was some, but it varies depending on motion especially with sub streams. I tried H264+ based on wildcat's comments but didn't see anything significantly different. That's probably my tired old eyes. I settled back to H264 each time. That seems to be what BI likes the most and provides excellent video, at least to me.

 

[Holbs]

I tried H265 and found no significant savings in disk space versus H264. There was some, but it varies depending on motion especially with sub streams. I tried H264+ based on wildcat's comments but didn't see anything significantly different. That's probably my tire old eyes. I settled back to H264 each time. That seems to be what BI likes the most and provides excellent video, at least to me.

Odd. I thought the whole point of H265 was up to 50% savings in storage recording.

 

[wittaj]

Odd. I thought the whole point of H265 was up to 50% savings in storage recording.

Lots of things theory is better than reality. I got literally a few more minutes of storage per day and felt like the image was worse based on how they macroblock H265. You can really tell it in digital zoom.

Heck reolinks are the bomb if you believe their marketing lol

 

[sebastiantombs]

That 50% may apply in a really static image but in real life when there's constant motion H265 doesn't deliver anything close to that. @wittaj has a good writeup illustrating how H265 works. Maybe he'll post it here.

 

[Sybertiger]

I have all my cams set for H265, why? Because it's the greatest thing since sliced bread or not. Anyhow, I haven't spent time analyzing H264 vs H265 but agree with you that I'm seeing more and more recommendations for H264. The only cam I'm responsible for that is currently set for H264 is a PTZ on my parent's BI system. Heck, I've been telling myself I should just change everything to H264 and not worry about saving a fraction of HD space with H265.

 

[wittaj]

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 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. Mine was 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 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. 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 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.

H265 is one of those theory things that sounds good, but reality use is much different.

As always, YMMV. But do not use Codec with BI or you may have trouble, so just stick with H264 without the H or B or + after.

 

[Sybertiger]

The lack of better compression with H265 by a lot of folks on here probably is simply explained by the more complex scenes of outdoor security surveillance. A lot of us are looking at outdoor scenes that can be complex due to all variation from vegetation, lighting changes, etc. Indoors, the lighting and subsequent shading is generally more controlled than outdoors. We'd probably find a lot more opportunity for large similar blocks inside than outside and also keep in mind the scene might be much larger with an outdoor cam than an indoor cam meaning even more complexity and less opportunity for compression.

 

[spammenotinoz]

As always details are important.
With 4k cameras I do find H265 uses almost half the bitrate of H264, so for me the savings are real.
If you are using a proprietary NVR and cameras of the same brand, generally H265+ is absolutely perfect, but don't use any+ with BI.
On a PC, on rare occasions H265 has produced artifacting\trails with motion, a few unexpected camera reboots so I avoid it.

I however still use H264 as when I deep dive into camera and system resources, I find H265 doubles the camera's internal CPU usage, cameras get warmer, BI PC uses more resources.
With a lot of cameras this can tip me over the edge that even with a gen 10 CPU, it's too much for Quicksync. Dialing back to H264 seems to leave a lot more head-room, that I need for video conversion. (I email videos alerts of motion alerts with people), when I am away.
I find disk space cheap, compared to the risk\cost of replacing cameras and I always constantly record. But yes retention would be halved, so depends on your use case.

 

[BORIStheBLADE]

I would use H.265 but BI requires BVR to utilize timeline scrubbing. So....

 

[Holbs]

the downside of having 20+ IP cameras.... now I have to log into each one and change the codecs on each one!
I'll swap to H.264 for all my cameras and check out the results. As it stands now, recording 24/7 on....hmm....10+ cameras out of 20, I have nearly 3 weeks of recording. Really do not need 3 weeks (for a business establishment I could see 30 days of recording but no need for residence). I could see 3-4 days at the max.

 

[Sybertiger]

Speaking of bitrates, what do y'all generally set the mainstream and substream bitrates at for 4MP and 2MP cams?

 

[sebastiantombs]

4MP - main 10240 sub 2048

2MP - main 5120 sub 2048

Frame and iframe at 15

 

[Sybertiger]

4MP - main 10240 sub 2048

2MP - main 5120 sub 2048

Frame and iframe at 15

Sounds like you are selecting the maximum default bit rates it offers for H264?

 

[wittaj]

I am usually 4096 for 2MP mainstream and 8192 for 4MP mainstream.

Then I go up and down from there until I don't see degradation or improvement.

Most of my subs are D1 resolution and 256 bitrate, although I have been upping them recently based on seeing the CPU doesn't increase a lot by increasing the sub bitrate. It really is amazing how good a D1 at 1024 or 2048 is and doesn't impact CPU that much.

 

[sebastiantombs]

That's not even close to max for the 5442 cameras at 10240. They'll go to 20480.

 

[Sybertiger]

That's not even close to max for the 5442 cameras at 10240. They'll go to 20480.

Ah, you aren't using the dropdown to select the max, you are typing it in via customize.

 

[looney2ns]

the downside of having 20+ IP cameras.... now I have to log into each one and change the codecs on each one!
I'll swap to H.264 for all my cameras and check out the results. As it stands now, recording 24/7 on....hmm....10+ cameras out of 20, I have nearly 3 weeks of recording. Really do not need 3 weeks (for a business establishment I could see 30 days of recording but no need for residence). I could see 3-4 days at the max.

This falls under the, if it's not broken, don't fix it. If it's worked for you and your happy, then why change?

 

[looney2ns]

I would use H.265 but BI requires BVR to utilize timeline scrubbing. So....

This has nothing to do with adjusting the bitrates in the cameras setup.

 

[Mike A.]

It's a matter of priorities. H.265 is more efficient in terms of compression if that's your highest priority.

Not really for me. I'm more concerned with quality/reliability and less so with marginal better optimization for data flow and storage. To a point at least. My network isn't taxed by a somewhat less efficient data stream. Processing requirements probably are a little lower. Storage is cheap these days. H.264/H.264H are efficient enough and look and work better in my experience for my purposes. If I were streaming a ton of data and/or had huge storage requirements, then my priorities might be different. You could save a lot more by reducing resolution/bitrates/FPS, etc., but generally I favor the quality side of things there also (to a point of diminishing returns at least).

Same I suppose as when looking at other types of compression for static images, lossy vs lossless audio compression, etc. There are tradeoffs depending on what your primary interests are.