Too many pixels for hand-held?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read several times that high-resolution, or many pixels, makes it more difficult to do hand-held photos. Presuming that reading the sensor is the same speed for a 18mp as a 50mp, and final print size is the same, then what accounts for the difficulty?

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Exodies]

I believe the story goes that with smaller pixels, a smaller movement of the camera will nudge a bundle of photons from the same point into adjacent cells.

[ralphh]

But then the smaller the blur would be on the final print. Given film doesn't have pixels you could argue you can never hand hold film as your photon would hit the next atom over on the film

 

It's just because people don't print anymore. They zoom in at 100% on a computer screen and think that it's not sharp enough. Or they expect to be able to crop 6mp out of 50 without quality loss

[Exodies]

Does the area occupied by inter-cellular walls increase as the number of cells increases thus dimming the image.

[ralphh]

When the 5DIII was released it was described as having hapless micro lenses. It was my understanding from this that even photons landing above a wall made it into a pocket, but I could have misunderstood (or I could have be marketing BS)

[ralphh]

I will say that I've seen no issue in hand holding going from 6mp to 24 over the years in DSLRs, though I'd hope my technique had also improved over the years too. 

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the area occupied by inter-cellular walls increase as the number of cells increases thus dimming the image.

Not (much) with current chips, as electronics are (mostly) on the other side. The actual pixel boundary is very small, the big issue was always the electronics.

[pop]

It's the weight of the power supply for the sensor and its cooling units which make hand held shooting awkward.

 

Rather, I think it's that people blow up the image by larger factors, most likely to crop minuscule parts of picture.

[edwardkaraa]

I think it's a false issue. It all depends on the final output. As said, more blur will be detected at 100% with the higher mp count, but images will look similar at the same output provided the lower mp sensor has enough resolution for the intended purpose. I would say the problem is actually reversed. If you shoot for a large final output, you need to be more careful with motion blur, and dof, and many other considerations, regardless of the sensor.

[Paul J]

I wouldn't know - I've handheld 50, 60, 80 and tried 100 megapixels, all without the issues that people suggest it hinders IQ or cripples usability. That is 135 and medium formats, and none of these cameras or lenses I have used have been stabilised.

 

The Canon should, by everyone's fears and guesses be unusable, but I have not found it significantly different to shooting the 24MP 5D.

 

It may originate from bloggers proliferating biased agendas, it could be their sloppy or inexperienced technique, and I think some of it comes from the accounts of the very terrible Sony a7r mk1 shutter which was a tank-canon of a thing.

 

Every time pixel count jumps up we hear the same sort of arguments and yet the whole then slowly adopts the extreme, the unnecessary, the unforgiving and it gradually becomes a standard, the normal. Then goes through the same cycle. 22MP was extreme a while back, yet now it is moderate and even on the low side.

 

I find most of the argument coming from people who have not even used these cameras, let alone used them long term.

[Adam]

Every image is blurry at some level of magnification. I thought the argument is that  a lower pixel count makes it more likely that minor blur due to bad technique is below the threshold of detection. I never used a 50+pixel camera but pixel peeping  is probably more traumatic when there are more pixels to peep. The more sensitive the instrument the more it will show errors in technique.

 

A more obvious downside for me is why should I store such big files if I do not print posters. Those who do, will obviously differ.

[250swb]

 Presuming that reading the sensor is the same speed for a 18mp as a 50mp, and final print size is the same, then what accounts for the difficulty?

 

Right or wrong I've always thought about it as something similar to 'edge effect' in film processing. A very fine grain film that is processed just for it's tone and fine grain can look less sharp from a similar distance compared with a grainier film processed for 'edge effect' where the contrast along separations of tone is harder. Or perhaps it is similar to micro contrast of lenses, where say an image from a Zeiss lens can look sharper to the eye than an equivalent Leica lens even though both are technically as sharp as each other. So therefore fewer pixels give a harder 'edge effect', while more pixels add sharpness to the edge detail and more subtle tone. But then factor in movement and more pixels combined with the smoother transition of tone can make the image look less sharp from a similar distance even though the difference between few and many pixels actually cancel each other out regarding sharpness. And hence the rise of new generation lenses with more and more micro contrast to combat the increase in pixel count and the perceived softening of detail with more pixels, when in reality the newer lenses aren't really any sharper, just more contrasty.

 

All said though the hand held problem isn't based on looking at images of the same size, it comes from the idiocy of 'I want to print at A2' when the camera owner doesn't even own a tripod.

 

 

Steve

[pico]

Steve, thanks for your excellent thoughts. I erred in presuming it was true that more pixels == greater loss due to motion.  It appears that our film experience is still quite relevant - acutance is a perceptual phenomena - the human factor remains regardless of digital or not.

 

I am reminded of cases where our visual system works in nonintuitive ways. For example, for a while I worked with USAF and RAF photo-recon people. The most accurate photo interpretations were done with relatively low resolution stereo images of higher contrast than we would use for ordinary photography. An officer enlightened me regarding my impression of sharpness by pointing out that to appear sharp there should be a clue that we anticipate such as fine hair that stands out against a background. He said, "You see that single hair strand, but cannot see a dot or separated dots of the same width." The brain fills it in, the emotions are satisfied, even pleased.

 

As for edge effects, I have never seen it in film except when an unusually successful unsharp mask is made. I've never made a good one, but hope remains as evinced by the Condit system boxed in storage.

[sblutter]

Photoshop has a motion blur correction feature that can save an important shot.  

 

Sharp focus is very important to me as I'm often wide open.  Am not very comfortable under 1/125 unless supported at least with a monopod.  I tend to shoot many versions and pick the best later in Bridge.

 

I don't recall motion blur being much an issue with M9 but my interests have changed.

 

As for MD3 - just don't like it

[zlatkob]

I have read several times that high-resolution, or many pixels, makes it more difficult to do hand-held photos. Presuming that reading the sensor is the same speed for a 18mp as a 50mp, and final print size is the same, then what accounts for the difficulty?

 

It is a photography myth.  A handheld camera moves exactly the same no matter how many pixels it has, so the degree of resulting blur within the image is exactly the same.  Over the years, I have gradually gone from 4 megapixels to over 20 megapixels and it has never affected hand-holdability.  Not even slightly.  What actually does affect hand-holdability is the degree of enlargement, the ergonomics and weight of the camera, the vibrations of the camera (such as if it has a mirror going up & down), the position of the controls, the steadiness and technique of the photographer, etc.

[jmahto]

Photoshop has a motion blur correction feature that can save an important shot.

 

Sharp focus is very important to me as I'm often wide open. Am not very comfortable under 1/125 unless supported at least with a monopod. I tend to shoot many versions and pick the best later in Bridge.

 

I don't recall motion blur being much an issue with M9 but my interests have changed.

 

As for MD3 - just don't like it

I have tried the motion blur removal feature in CC and although it helps a little, I was not very happy. In fact it helped only when blur was very small and simply sharpening gave better results to my eyes. I gave up after couple of tries.

 

Now I don't worry about motion blur that much since they don't show up if output size is small (web or small prints like A4). I simply tag them in LR so that I know not to print big.

[jaapv]

It is a photography myth.  A handheld camera moves exactly the same no matter how many pixels it has, so the degree of resulting blur within the image is exactly the same.  Over the years, I have gradually gone from 4 megapixels to over 20 megapixels and it has never affected hand-holdability.  Not even slightly.  What actually does affect hand-holdability is the degree of enlargement, the ergonomics and weight of the camera, the vibrations of the camera (such as if it has a mirror going up & down), the position of the controls, the steadiness and technique of the photographer, etc.

It is not a myth. See  my slightly primitive sketch.

 

On a large pixel the motion blur is inside the sensel, thus invisible.

With small pixels the same amount of blur will affect three sensels, making it visible and even artificially increasing it.

 

So the problem is not the MP count, but the pixel size. A medium format 50 MP sensor will have less problems with motion blur than a 35  50 MP sensor.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Obviously, the larger the blur gets (thus outside the large sensel), the less the impact of the spillover -relatively- will be.

[Jeff S]

See  my slightly primitive sketch.

 

 

 

 

I see a monkey face.  Did I pass my Rorschach?

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

:lol:  Now that you mention it... I was not aware I had such drawing skills .

I didn't see it or I would have posted it upside down.

[Hey You]

I see an excellent likeness of Homer Simpson.

 

What has always puzzled me about "pixel blur" assertions is that the problem should be most pronounced in cell phone cameras.

They have many pixels crammed into miniature sensors.

So how come we don't see complaints from users of cell phone cameras, but we do see concerns from users of high-end cameras?