![]() In my testing I have one camera that sees a parked car in front of my house. Storage is computed based on multiplying bitrate, FPS, and resolution. But if you need to run the same bitrate for H265 as you do H264, then the storage savings is zero. The only way to get around that is a higher bitrate. But if there is a lot of motion in the image, then it becomes a pixelated mess. ![]() In theory H265 is supposed to need half the bitrate because of the macroblocking. 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. The left image is H264, so all the blocks are the same size corresponding to the resolution of the camera. 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. In theory it is supposed to need 30% less storage than H264, but most of us have found it isn't that much. 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. ![]() 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. This will explain H264 versus H265 a little better. Obviously every field of view is different and some use H265 without issue, but most of us have found H264 to be better.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |