Do higher megapixels affect motion blur?

[J_Allen]

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.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

They are violating the “don’t pixel peep” rule. If you view your photo whole and entire you won’t notice. But if you zoom in you will.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

True and not true. And not very important.

Higher MP will not change the amount of blur, but if you pixel peep you will be able to detect smaller amounts of blur than would be detectable on fewer pixels. So in theory there's a difference but you're very unlikely to see it in practice.

Gato

 

[JohnSil]

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.

I'm sure there is a technical term but I call this "pixel speed". That's not how fast a pixel is but how quickly an object transitions from pixel to pixel. For example, a jet plane at an air show may be traveling at 1000 mph but it's a 1/4 mile away so takes 5 seconds to cross the entire camera frame, that's very slow pixel speed. Now a runner going 10 mph but only 10 feet away fills the frame and crosses the frame in a 1/10th of a second. That's a very FAST pixel speed. it transitions from pixel to pixel extremely fast leaving more possibility for motion blur unless you up the shutter speed.

The jet might have very crisp lines whereas the runner at the same SS might be blurred.

John

 

[sybersitizen]

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.

Are you sure they said that? That's something someone might say about camera shake (and it might apply if you intend to view your high pixel count images at a larger size).

Motion blur refers to moving subjects, or an intentionally moving camera. There is no particular shutter speed to use for all the possible moving subjects you might shoot with a 100mm lens.

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

 

[Guy Parsons]

I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video where they were talking about motion blur and the reciprocal rule.

The reciprocal rule is deliberately designed to introduce blur to moving objects, that makes the video appear smoother.

They stated that if you are shooting at higher megapixels ( I assume they mean 45- 60 MP)

The video effectively would be most likely shot at FHD or 4K and the camera's overall MP is always cropped or interpolated to that final output, so camera MP having an effect on blur doesn't make sense to me.

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.

The idea of freezing motion in a video would logically come from the need to later extract individual frames to present as stills, for that you need to abandon the reciprocal rule and shoot the video with appropriately fast shutter speeds, maybe in the 1/250 sec and faster range for most scenes.

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.

Yep, it all sounds like some pixel peeping exercise on a paused video. I thought videos were meant to be seen moving and only full screen.

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.

For 4K video you theoretically only need about an 8MP camera and next up is 8K video where something like a 33MP camera would make more sense.

Higher MP is only of real use for stills. Also Tony and Chelsea are there for click-bait and entertainment, not for information to always believe.

 

[JohnSil]

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

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?

John

 

[sybersitizen]

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

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?

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'.

 

[Guy Parsons]

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

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?

John

It's all to do with pixel peeping.

On a lower MP camera you are basically doing close examination of something like a 4 or 5 foot wide print, with higher MP then you may be closely looking at a 10 foot wide print.

Totally unrealistic way to evaluate images.

Pixel peeping is there simply to look for and reveal normally invisible "faults".

If people could have pixel peeped in film days then the horrible grainy mess that makes up colour film images may have led to the earlier demise of colour film. :-(

Now with digital images some people go looking at 400% and they find issues.

Never look closer than say 50% pixel peep and your camera will work a lot better.

 

[a_c_skinner]

"I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video"

You've identified your problem in your first sentence.

All these higher pixel questions are simply answered by saying no, that isn't the case but they make it easier to see what was going on in the lower pixel images or yes, to get the advantage of the pixels you need to be more fastidious about motion, depth of field, lens quality etc.

 

[Photoclever]

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.

Take a 24mp and a 50mp camera. There's the wide range of shutter speeds which will blur on both. And a wide range which will not. In between is a narrow range where the higher resolving camera will pick up some blur that the other does not. Even if you view at the same size (i.e. 28" screen), you will perceive that blur just like you can still perceive more detail. It's somewhat rare, but it provably occurs.

So yes, with higher resolution you want higher shutter speeds. You might get away with the same shutter speed in a given scenario, just like you might get away with a lower than recommended shutter speed on the 24mp camera. But if you want to guarantee no blur, bump it up a bit.

 

[FingerPainter]

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.

Take a 24mp and a 50mp camera. There's the wide range of shutter speeds which will blur on both. And a wide range which will not. In between is a narrow range where the higher resolving camera will pick up some blur that the other does not. Even if you view at the same size (i.e. 28" screen), you will perceive that blur just like you can still perceive more detail. It's somewhat rare, but it provably occurs.

That's just inaccurate. Depending on where the blur lies relative to pixel boundaries, higher resolution sensors might show more blur or less blur, by a fraction of a pixel. On average, the blur on a higher-resolution image will be slightly less, because the higher resolution more accurately locates the blur.

So yes, with higher resolution you want higher shutter speeds. You might get away with the same shutter speed in a given scenario, just like you might get away with a lower than recommended shutter speed on the 24mp camera. But if you want to guarantee no blur, bump it up a bit.

That won't guarantee no blur.

 

[spider-mario]

I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup video where they were talking about motion blur and the reciprocal rule.

The reciprocal rule is deliberately designed to introduce blur to moving objects, that makes the video appear smoother.

You are thinking of the 180°-shutter rule, which is not really reciprocal (and also not very accurate).

 

[spider-mario]

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.

Are you sure they said that? That's something someone might say about camera shake (and it might apply if you intend to view your high pixel count images at a larger size).

Motion blur refers to moving subjects, or an intentionally moving camera. There is no particular shutter speed to use for all the possible moving subjects you might shoot with a 100mm lens.

Camera shake is arguably a form/source of motion blur, isn’t it?

 

[BackToNature1]

They are violating the “don’t pixel peep” rule. If you view your photo whole and entire you won’t notice. But if you zoom in you will.

That's just a myth created by those whom don't want folks to see what's what.

 

[BackToNature1]

So whatever we are doing Right is revealed more and whatever we are doing Wrong is revealed more. So sure, better techniques would be required to avoid that.

 

[sybersitizen]

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.

Are you sure they said that? That's something someone might say about camera shake (and it might apply if you intend to view your high pixel count images at a larger size).

Motion blur refers to moving subjects, or an intentionally moving camera. There is no particular shutter speed to use for all the possible moving subjects you might shoot with a 100mm lens.

Camera shake is arguably a form/source of motion blur, isn’t it?

The distinction is right there in the quotes. If someone recommends a particular shutter speed for shooting with a 100mm lens, the subject is camera shake ... so that's the term to use to distinguish it from other types of motion.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

only in as much the blur is seen on more pixels than a lower resolution sensor

 

[spider-mario]

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.

Are you sure they said that? That's something someone might say about camera shake (and it might apply if you intend to view your high pixel count images at a larger size).

Motion blur refers to moving subjects, or an intentionally moving camera. There is no particular shutter speed to use for all the possible moving subjects you might shoot with a 100mm lens.

Camera shake is arguably a form/source of motion blur, isn’t it?

The distinction is right there in the quotes. If someone recommends a particular shutter speed for shooting with a 100mm lens, the subject is camera shake ... so that's the term to use to distinguish it from other types of motion.

I agree that camera shake is more specific, my point is that it’s not wrong to refer to it as motion blur either, because it’s also that. They are not disjoint – they are in a hyponymous relationship.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

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.

In a general sense, shooting at a shutter speed above your focal length is good advice. At least 2X the focal length. (IMO) But to get the best of what a very high MP camera can output, the small amount of pixel to pixel blur can be adjusted for by increasing the shutter speed by as much as the exposure will allow. -More than twice the focal length.

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.

To get the best images from your camera, if possible, a vibration reduction (VR) lense will help a lot with handheld shots in dim environments and a tripod will be an additional guarantee to get what you want from camera. Perfect focus is of course critical. The Z8 you mention has the top AF available. Or perhaps the D6 -if highest MP is less important.

In addition, if you are shooting at very high ISO when shooting at really high shutter speeds, there are quite effective noise removal and detail enhancing applications in processing your image. DxO PL6 or Lightroom come to mind https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9...gs-photoshop-lightroom-nr-into-the-modern-era