SystemQ Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 JPEG2000 is good for fast moving pictures and gives a good picture quality. Downside of JPEG2000 is it uses a lot more disk space for the same recording time of H264. I often try to compare JPEG2000 with traditional CD quality audio and H264 with MPEG3 quality audio. You may get a slightly better quality of audio with a traditional CD but MPEG3 files are almost as good and take up so little space. H264 is far superior over a network and pretty much essential if you have a slow broadband. But as Colin said its a personal choice. We sell JPEG2000 and H264 but I personally use H264 machines. Paul. System Q Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalwitness Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 There is not much to compare to Jpeg2000 playback quality from a good manufacturer, it is definitely one of the best out there. Only drawback is the file size is quite large, when it comes to file size versus picture quality then H.264 wins hands down (again from a quality manufacturer) and has the additional benefits of improved network performance (dual codec streamers aside). This is the year of H.264, it has come of age for many established makes. H.264 up till now has mainly been available from Chinese manufacturers (stand alone machines) and has been used to penetrate the market, now more established companies (with a reputation to protect) have refined the technology. If looking at H.264 consider the following, h.264 is performed by hardware so the processor power requirement is not large during recording but during playback processor power is all important and many existing h.264 DVRs fail miserably at the simple tasks such as: 1) Can only playback 1 or 2 cameras at a time, imo useless, especially on larger machines. 2) You cannot switch between cameras on playback, you have to restart the search again! The newer machines work as you have grown to expect but I would advise you ask the question. As regards your exiting machine, they offer good value (from the right source) and I am surprised you cannot set the recording resolution & quality to a level that you would be happy with, look into this further because the cheapest option should be changing your hard drive if you are looking at the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemQ Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 There is not much to compare to Jpeg2000 playback quality from a good manufacturer, it is definitely one of the best out there. Only drawback is the file size is quite large, when it comes to file size versus picture quality then H.264 wins hands down (again from a quality manufacturer) and has the additional benefits of improved network performance (dual codec streamers aside).This is the year of H.264, it has come of age for many established makes. H.264 up till now has mainly been available from Chinese manufacturers (stand alone machines) and has been used to penetrate the market, now more established companies (with a reputation to protect) have refined the technology. If looking at H.264 consider the following, h.264 is performed by hardware so the processor power requirement is not large during recording but during playback processor power is all important and many existing h.264 DVRs fail miserably at the simple tasks such as: 1) Can only playback 1 or 2 cameras at a time, imo useless, especially on larger machines. 2) You cannot switch between cameras on playback, you have to restart the search again! The newer machines work as you have grown to expect but I would advise you ask the question. As regards your exiting machine, they offer good value (from the right source) and I am surprised you cannot set the recording resolution & quality to a level that you would be happy with, look into this further because the cheapest option should be changing your hard drive if you are looking at the System Q Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalwitness Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Yes so have I system Q (as I have stated that this is the year for H.264) but maybe you agree that in general cheaper h.264 dvrs do not perform as most would expect them to when compared to MPEG4 machines. My advice to harry254 is that definitely consider h.264 depending on your application requirements but do not assume that the work exactly as you expect especially during playback (cheaper models) and I would also advise expanding your budget slightly to acquire a quailty h.264 machine, when considering time and playback quality it will be worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Personally speaking id go with a jpeg or jpeg 2000 machine for pure still picture quality. And also agree that it takes a lot of space bu hard drives space is cheaper than the alternaive IMO. hourse for courses etc, but we use the dm digi sprites but they aint cheap. James securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whistle Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The DVR i have been testing records in J peg 2000 but networks in H264, so best of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satsuma01 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The DVR i have been testing records in J peg 2000 but networks in H264, so best of both. whats that modsel dvr then whistle? "If you carry your childhood with you, you never become old. Why rush to end life when happiness is in the blissfulness of childhood innocence.""We all die, the goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will." 07475071344 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemQ Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 whats that modsel dvr then whistle? Its the same as our SMART2 DVR that was revised on this site. However it now has H264 transmission. We called it SMART3. Paul. System Q Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satsuma01 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Its the same as our SMART2 DVR that was revised on this site.However it now has H264 transmission. We called it SMART3. Paul. hi paul. i must admit the jpeg qualty takes some beating, it really does seem a stable bit of kit. imho Any chance of some info about the smart 3?? regards colin "If you carry your childhood with you, you never become old. Why rush to end life when happiness is in the blissfulness of childhood innocence.""We all die, the goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will." 07475071344 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemQ Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 hi paul.i must admit the jpeg qualty takes some beating, it really does seem a stable bit of kit. imho Any chance of some info about the smart 3?? regards colin Hi Colin. Yes I will send you over some info. To be honest I don System Q Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.