Do higher megapixels affect motion blur?

sybersitizen said:

JohnSil said:

sybersitizen said:

In any case ... neither visible camera shake nor visible motion blur is about differences in pixel count. It's about viewing size and distance.

Click to expand...

That begs the question WHY high mp cameras(say 50mp+) were getting visible blur from mirror slap yet it is RARELY a problem in lower(say <35mp) pixel count cameras?

Click to expand...

It's because people were looking at larger viewing sizes with the 50MP+ files.

One of these images has four times as many pixels as the other, but when they're viewed at the same size, the motion blur doesn't look any different:


0.5MP


2MP

You have to view the higher pixel count version at a larger size to see 'more blur'.

Click to expand...

Ok, yes this makes the most sense and answers my question. If the same photos at different MP are viewed at a resolution that fills your desktop they will look the same. It's only when viewed at larger size that that motion blur is more visible.

I thought this may be a reason to choose 24MP vs 50MP, but it is not. I think this was misleading and pointless statement to make.

That may have been their intent but the OP clearly didn't grasp that from their explanation and the right idea badly explained is almost as little use as a wrong idea.

Apologies for a late reply.

J_Allen said:

I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video where they were talking about motion blur and the reciprocal rule. They stated that if you are shooting at higher megapixels ( I assume they mean 45- 60 MP) that you need to adjust and shoot at an even higher shutter speed to freeze motion. For example, if shooting at 100mm you would need to shoot at 1/120 sec to compensate for higher megapixels.

I have to say that I don't quite understand this. If you are still viewing it on your normal 28-32" computer screen I would think that this is only visible if you expanded to 100%. My cameras are 21 and 24 MP and not considered high MP.

I don't need a higher MP than on the Nikon Z6, but if this is true it would lean me in the direction of not purchasing a Z7ii or Z8.

Click to expand...

The short answer is no, higher resolution cameras don't "affect motion blur."

They will, however, allow it to be seen more clearly when pixel peeping.

If your technique sucks, you should work on improving it, regardless of how many pixels you record images with. Motion blur degrades your images whether you shoot with 12MP or 45MP.

Two answers for two scenarios:

No, motion blur will be the same, If you are printing or resizing the image to same resolution as lower resolution counter part.

Yes, motion blur will be amplified if you are going to print the photo larger (at native res) at the same dpi as the lower resolution counter part.

Often times, a great use case for high megapixel cameras is the ability to crop when using a prime lens. This forcibly makes you pixel peep more and the motion blur will be more visible in this case.

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

blckcat said:

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

Click to expand...

Let's take a closer look at your hypothetical. A detail in a photo is seen as blurry if it covers an area of the frame that is discernable and larger than we world expect for that detail. Regardless of the number of pixels the detail covers, it still covers the exact same area. It has the same degree of blurriness or sharpness.

When we zoom in to have a closer look, the lack of detail or sharpness becomes more obvious. The text of this message looks well-defined at screen resolution. If you take a screenshot and zoom in far enough to the image, the text will eventually look rough and ill-defined. At sufficient magnification, the sharp edges of the text will look blurry.

Pixel density doesn't alter our perception of a detail in a scene as being either sharp or blurry. It's the area covered by the detail that registers as either sharp or blurry.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

J_Allen said:

sybersitizen said:

JohnSil said:

sybersitizen said:

In any case ... neither visible camera shake nor visible motion blur is about differences in pixel count. It's about viewing size and distance.

Click to expand...

That begs the question WHY high mp cameras(say 50mp+) were getting visible blur from mirror slap yet it is RARELY a problem in lower(say <35mp) pixel count cameras?

Click to expand...

It's because people were looking at larger viewing sizes with the 50MP+ files.

One of these images has four times as many pixels as the other, but when they're viewed at the same size, the motion blur doesn't look any different:


0.5MP


2MP

You have to view the higher pixel count version at a larger size to see 'more blur'.

Click to expand...

Ok, yes this makes the most sense and answers my question. If the same photos at different MP are viewed at a resolution that fills your desktop they will look the same. It's only when viewed at larger size that that motion blur is more visible.

I thought this may be a reason to choose 24MP vs 50MP, but it is not. I think this was misleading and pointless statement to make.

Click to expand...

Its not completely pointless, some photographers may want an output that can be viewed very close up rather than normal viewing distances. Quite often such output is of critical detail, so they must take all factors into account.

It is a common Northrupian trick to cite a niche bit of photographic technique and amplify it is necessary practice for everyone.

In truth it is just something that must be borne in mind. Handheld Shutter speed is most often governed by the available light and kind of photograph we want to take. So increasing the shutter speed might raise the ISO- reducing detail- so you end up in a game of robbing peter to pay paul.

--
you say Nikon, I say Nikon. You say Z, I say Z. Nikon, Nikon, Z, Z, Lets call the whole thing off.

J_Allen said:

I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video where they were talking about motion blur and the reciprocal rule. They stated that if you are shooting at higher megapixels ( I assume they mean 45- 60 MP) that you need to adjust and shoot at an even higher shutter speed to freeze motion. For example, if shooting at 100mm you would need to shoot at 1/120 sec to compensate for higher megapixels.

I have to say that I don't quite understand this. If you are still viewing it on your normal 28-32" computer screen I would think that this is only visible if you expanded to 100%. My cameras are 21 and 24 MP and not considered high MP.

I don't need a higher MP than on the Nikon Z6, but if this is true it would lean me in the direction of not purchasing a Z7ii or Z8.

Click to expand...

Someone once said, "Beware of correct answers to wrong questions".

If the question is, "what pixel density makes motion blur easiest to single out and identify specifically as motion blur with a given focal length", then the answer is "the highest pixel density".

However, as a contributor to overall "un-resolution", the larger pixels, which serve to make it harder to detect what is actually motion blur, give the lowest resolution.

This is so easy to simulate in software; take an image with moderate blur visible at 100% pixel view. Then, pixelate it in software at various pixelation sizes; 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, etc, and what you will find is that nothing is actually gained, overall, resolution-wise, by any pixelation. The motion blur is more identifiable at the original resolution, but the image is also more detailed. After all, the motion blur is "really there", so why wouldn't better resolution resolve it better, independent of other blurs?

blckcat said:

Two answers for two scenarios:

No, motion blur will be the same, If you are printing or resizing the image to same resolution as lower resolution counter part.

Yes, motion blur will be amplified if you are going to print the photo larger (at native res) at the same dpi as the lower resolution counter part.

Often times, a great use case for high megapixel cameras is the ability to crop when using a prime lens. This forcibly makes you pixel peep more and the motion blur will be more visible in this case.

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "half passing".

In any event, with sufficient pixel density on both the monitor and the sensor, things are virtually analog and only the displayed size of the motion blur determines how much you may notice it. If the pixel density of either the monitor or the sensor is very low, however, blurs are actually worse with that lower pixel density. Many people will go through years of photography and not notice that motion blur is worse with larger pixels, because they have an arbitrary fabricated rule in their heads that says that it is unfair and unnatural to examine captures at greater than 100% pixel view, so what happens is that lower pixel densities capture images that are magnified less when examined, and look "crisper" mainly for that reason alone.

People seem to be way, way more forgiving of images with very small displayed subject sizes than they are forgiving of the lowered maximum pixel contrast of higher pixel densities. This leads to false conclusions about the quality of capture, to many people whose visceral instincts, probably for good evolutionary reasons, are not valid for empirical values in modern imaging.

John Sheehy said:

blckcat said:

Yes, motion blur will be amplified if you are going to print the photo larger (at native res) at the same dpi as the lower resolution counter part.

Often times, a great use case for high megapixel cameras is the ability to crop when using a prime lens. This forcibly makes you pixel peep more and the motion blur will be more visible in this case.

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

Click to expand...

In any event, with sufficient pixel density on both the monitor and the sensor, things are virtually analog and only the displayed size of the motion blur determines how much you may notice it. If the pixel density of either the monitor or the sensor is very low, however, blurs are actually worse with that lower pixel density. Many people will go through years of photography and not notice that motion blur is worse with larger pixels, because they have an arbitrary fabricated rule in their heads that says that it is unfair and unnatural to examine captures at greater than 100% pixel view, so what happens is that lower pixel densities capture images that are magnified less when examined, and look "crisper" mainly for that reason alone.

People seem to be way, way more forgiving of images with very small displayed subject sizes than they are forgiving of the lowered maximum pixel contrast of higher pixel densities. This leads to false conclusions about the quality of capture, to many people whose visceral instincts, probably for good evolutionary reasons, are not valid for empirical values in modern imaging.

Click to expand...

One thing that I often 'forget' is, in using a higher MP camera, to take into account that any movement of camera or subject, is going to be amplified in a blurring of image if image is increased in size or cropped to get anywhere close to a pixel to pixel blurring.

Paying attention to this by increasing shutter speed and balancing the ISO for exposure is more critical in a D850 than a D3s for example. Then, if noise becomes evident, noise reduction and sharpening can make a difference in resulting image in print or monitor. Good editing software with latest AI sharpening and noise reduction is becoming more important.

John Sheehy said:

J_Allen said:

I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video where they were talking about motion blur and the reciprocal rule. They stated that if you are shooting at higher megapixels ( I assume they mean 45- 60 MP) that you need to adjust and shoot at an even higher shutter speed to freeze motion. For example, if shooting at 100mm you would need to shoot at 1/120 sec to compensate for higher megapixels.

I have to say that I don't quite understand this. If you are still viewing it on your normal 28-32" computer screen I would think that this is only visible if you expanded to 100%. My cameras are 21 and 24 MP and not considered high MP.

I don't need a higher MP than on the Nikon Z6, but if this is true it would lean me in the direction of not purchasing a Z7ii or Z8.

Click to expand...

Someone once said, "Beware of correct answers to wrong questions".

If the question is, "what pixel density makes motion blur easiest to single out and identify specifically as motion blur with a given focal length", then the answer is "the highest pixel density".

However, as a contributor to overall "un-resolution", the larger pixels, which serve to make it harder to detect what is actually motion blur, give the lowest resolution.

This is so easy to simulate in software; take an image with moderate blur visible at 100% pixel view. Then, pixelate it in software at various pixelation sizes; 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, etc, and what you will find is that nothing is actually gained, overall, resolution-wise, by any pixelation. The motion blur is more identifiable at the original resolution, but the image is also more detailed. After all, the motion blur is "really there", so why wouldn't better resolution resolve it better, independent of other blurs?

Click to expand...

woudnt pixel bleeding have more effect on sharpness than other blur factors with smaller pixels ?

Philip Eihuyar said:

John Sheehy said:

blckcat said:

Yes, motion blur will be amplified if you are going to print the photo larger (at native res) at the same dpi as the lower resolution counter part.

Often times, a great use case for high megapixel cameras is the ability to crop when using a prime lens. This forcibly makes you pixel peep more and the motion blur will be more visible in this case.

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

Click to expand...

In any event, with sufficient pixel density on both the monitor and the sensor, things are virtually analog and only the displayed size of the motion blur determines how much you may notice it. If the pixel density of either the monitor or the sensor is very low, however, blurs are actually worse with that lower pixel density. Many people will go through years of photography and not notice that motion blur is worse with larger pixels, because they have an arbitrary fabricated rule in their heads that says that it is unfair and unnatural to examine captures at greater than 100% pixel view, so what happens is that lower pixel densities capture images that are magnified less when examined, and look "crisper" mainly for that reason alone.

People seem to be way, way more forgiving of images with very small displayed subject sizes than they are forgiving of the lowered maximum pixel contrast of higher pixel densities. This leads to false conclusions about the quality of capture, to many people whose visceral instincts, probably for good evolutionary reasons, are not valid for empirical values in modern imaging.

Click to expand...

One thing that I often 'forget' is, in using a higher MP camera, to take into account that any movement of camera or subject, is going to be amplified in a blurring of image if image is increased in size or cropped to get anywhere close to a pixel to pixel blurring.

Click to expand...

There is zero need to increase shutter speed to compensate for mythical amplification of motion blur due to shooting with a higher megapixel sensor.

Philip Eihuyar said:

Paying attention to this by increasing shutter speed and balancing the ISO for exposure is more critical in a D850 than a D3s for example.

Click to expand...

ISO isn't an exposure setting. Nor is it a source of noise. Increasing ISO to compensate for increased shutter speed will maintain image lightness...and reveal the noise that's more prominent due to a reduction of total light energy delivered to the sensor.

Philip Eihuyar said:

Then, if noise becomes evident, noise reduction and sharpening can make a difference in resulting image in print or monitor. Good editing software with latest AI sharpening and noise reduction is becoming more important.

Click to expand...

If your intent is to print large or to print a tight crop to force the viewer to look at an action scene at high magnification and you want the viewer to see a sharp, detailed image, the best thing you can do is use the largest format, highest resolution system available. Pair that with a top quality lens. Use a fast shutter speed to mitigate motion blur that becomes more prominent at high magnification. And, yes, use an excellent AI sharpening & noise reduction tool to overcome the distracting noise and softness that are inherent when viewing images at high magnification.

Philip Eihuyar said:

John Sheehy said:

blckcat said:

Yes, motion blur will be amplified if you are going to print the photo larger (at native res) at the same dpi as the lower resolution counter part.

Often times, a great use case for high megapixel cameras is the ability to crop when using a prime lens. This forcibly makes you pixel peep more and the motion blur will be more visible in this case.

Think about it -- having a moving object passing through two full pixels (of lower res sensor) will be more crisper than half passing through three or four pixel (of 2x higher res)

Click to expand...

In any event, with sufficient pixel density on both the monitor and the sensor, things are virtually analog and only the displayed size of the motion blur determines how much you may notice it. If the pixel density of either the monitor or the sensor is very low, however, blurs are actually worse with that lower pixel density. Many people will go through years of photography and not notice that motion blur is worse with larger pixels, because they have an arbitrary fabricated rule in their heads that says that it is unfair and unnatural to examine captures at greater than 100% pixel view, so what happens is that lower pixel densities capture images that are magnified less when examined, and look "crisper" mainly for that reason alone.

People seem to be way, way more forgiving of images with very small displayed subject sizes than they are forgiving of the lowered maximum pixel contrast of higher pixel densities. This leads to false conclusions about the quality of capture, to many people whose visceral instincts, probably for good evolutionary reasons, are not valid for empirical values in modern imaging.

Click to expand...

One thing that I often 'forget' is, in using a higher MP camera, to take into account that any movement of camera or subject, is going to be amplified in a blurring of image if image is increased in size or cropped to get anywhere close to a pixel to pixel blurring.

Click to expand...

It is easy to forget that traditional and industry standards for needed shutter speed for hand-holding are not very demanding; the standards are for small viewing sizes and not for zooming in. Most people, without IS, would require a couple stops more shutter speed than the 1/focal_length for a 60MP FF camera, if they wanted images that are consistently stable-looking at high magnification.

Philip Eihuyar said:

Paying attention to this by increasing shutter speed and balancing the ISO for exposure is more critical in a D850 than a D3s for example. Then, if noise becomes evident, noise reduction and sharpening can make a difference in resulting image in print or monitor. Good editing software with latest AI sharpening and noise reduction is becoming more important.

Click to expand...

Pixel density can play an important role in decision-making, but that is because when considering tradeoffs, you can only get so much detail because of larger pixels, so it may not be worth it to use a faster shutter speed that can't be much appreciated, anyway, when less noise would be of more value. However, one does not HAVE to use fast shutter speeds with higher pixel density; the higher density provides potential which may or may not be taken advantage of, and there is no harm in having higher pixel density with a given "low" shutter speed, because the result is still at least slightly superior to the lower pixel density. So, it is totally rational to drop to the same lower shutter speed that you would choose for lower pixel densities, with higher ones, if noise is your most relevant concern; you're only giving up a level of detail that isn't even available with the lower pixel density.