Shutter Speed vs Resolution

AJSJones wrote in post #13623280
Can I get a glass or toke of whatever Delija is having

LOL...I have been criticized my whole life for sharing too much - so you'd be welcome to whatever I had if it were anything. In this case about three days with no sleep. So just my genetically based insanity (all my parent's fault) exaggerated by sleep deprivation - head spinning too much to be able to sleep.
I'm sure we've all been there. So off on tangents (more geometry) I went. You are more than welcome on my gracious invitation to stay awake for three days as I had - no "thank you" note would be expected...

Peace,
D.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13624711

altitude604 wrote in post #13624595
well shutter speed and resolution are independent unless i'm totally mistaken so all this thread really is just an elaborate bait to get people into a circle jerk of measurebation.

shutter speed only interrupts the light from reaching the sensor so it will not affect the quality of the light hitting the sensor therefore it does not change the resolution. you're not going to get more lp/mm at 1/30 than at 1/100 but you may at f/2.8 versus f/8 because aperture directly affects the light transmission path.

there? happy?

ffs.

Before commenting foolishly, maybe you should ensure you actually understand what the Op is asking before becoming a bait yourself.

Although this could have been put in a more friendly way, he is correct actually. If you are referring to the boldened writing, than yes, that is correct, because diffraction limits maximimizes attainable resolution. IOW, the smaler the aperture, the less resolution.

Lens aberrations also come into play here, but resolution can never be more that what is dictated by lens diffraction.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13624776
Or if you had a sensor with half the density (10mp), then the movement would be recorded in 1 pixel, thus no blur would be visible at 100% view.
A 10mp camera can record an image without showing any blur at 100%, however a 20mp camera would show blur at 100% thus limiting the size you can print the image before seeing blur.
The 10mp camera wouldn't see any benefit by increasing the shutter speed as there is no blur, however the 20mp camera would see a benefit if you increased the shutter speed to say something like 1/800, so movement is constrained to 1 pixel, This would allow you to print larger, and thus take full advantage of all those extra pixels.

Thus a 10mp camera can have a stop lower shutter speed than a 20mp before movement is recorded.

Actually, shutter speed is directly related to linear magnification, not to areal magnification, it is a linear thing. Since 20 MP is twice the amount of MP as compared to 10 MP, and this is about area, it is the square root of two faster, or 1.4X faster, not 2X faster.

In short, if you can use a shutter speed of e.g., 1/50s at 10 MP for pixel level sharpness, at 20 MP you'd need 1/70s for the same pixel level sharpness (which is 1.4X magnified compared to the 10 MP one).

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #13625814
Actually, shutter speed is directly related to linear magnification, not to areal magnification, it is a linear thing. Since 20 MP is twice the amount of MP as compared to 10 MP, and this is about area, it is the square root of two faster, or 1.4X faster, not 2X faster.

In short, if you can use a shutter speed of e.g., 1/50s at 10 MP for pixel level sharpness, at 20 MP you'd need 1/70s for the same pixel level sharpness (which is 1.4X magnified compared to the 10 MP one).

Kind regards, Wim

But if the train is coming at you at a certain speed, you'd need to adjust for that in a different way than if it were going across your field of vision at the same speed - one's areal the other's lineal. Then there's the train that's moving at 45 degrees to your optical axis....

Just kidding

AJSJones wrote in post #13625828
But if the train is coming at you at a certain speed, you'd need to adjust for that in a different way than if it were going across your field of vision at the same speed - one's areal the other's lineal. Then there's the train that's moving at 45 degrees to your optical axis....









Just kidding

:P

Ah, but you see, in my examples when pixel peeping you'd have the same linear amount of pixels blurred

Kind regards, Wim

But only if the train is at a constant speed . If the train had stopped by the time you switched cameras, there'd be no blur.

And in your example, you are, of course, correct. I still use the term "resolution" the way I learnt it - as linear resolution. The use of "total MP = resolution" definition that came in the digital age still grates but I have got used to it - so I don't have to do the 1.4 conversion, I'm already using pixel size in my head....

wimg wrote in post #13625898
:P

Ah, but you see, in my examples when pixel peeping you'd have the same linear amount of pixels blurred

Kind regards, Wim

Yes, but if you shot w. the 5DMkIV, you would get the name of the train driver along with her telephone number... in the ExiF data...

Happy New Year!

wimg wrote in post #13625814
Although this could have been put in a more friendly way, he is correct actually. If you are referring to the boldened writing, than yes, that is correct, because diffraction limits maximimizes attainable resolution. IOW, the smaler the aperture, the less resolution.

Lens aberrations also come into play here, but resolution can never be more that what is dictated by lens diffraction.

The reason that I highlighted the text in bold was because it had ZERO relevance to the Ops question.

"Increasing ISO increases noise." That statement is not incorrect, but also has ZERO relevance to the Ops question.

wimg wrote in post #13625814
Actually, shutter speed is directly related to linear magnification, not to areal magnification, it is a linear thing. Since 20 MP is twice the amount of MP as compared to 10 MP, and this is about area, it is the square root of two faster, or 1.4X faster, not 2X faster.

In short, if you can use a shutter speed of e.g., 1/50s at 10 MP for pixel level sharpness, at 20 MP you'd need 1/70s for the same pixel level sharpness (which is 1.4X magnified compared to the 10 MP one).

Kind regards, Wim

Yes my mistake, thank you for correcting that error.