MP and camera shake

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems that camera shake can be more apparent with high-resolution sensors. Would it then be possible to disguise camera shake by lowering the resolution of the image in post? I have yet to try this, but it would be handy to know. Often I will add noise and grain to a file to remove what I call "digital curse," a clinical, synthetic look that many digital images can have. Lowering the resolution would not hurt in those cases.

[Advertisement]

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

[irenedp]

never tried. 

 

Said that, the S3 shakes significantly more than the S2, and Leica created the triple resolution for the M11. So some concern they did have. 

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, irenedp said:

never tried. 

 

Said that, the S3 shakes significantly more than the S2, and Leica created the triple resolution for the M11. So some concern they did have. 

Does the S3 really shake any more than the S2 or S 007? Or is it that the higher resolution makes camera shake more apparent? What I am getting at here is can one just downsize S3 images to remove camera shake to some extent.

[davidmknoble]

I haven’t done the math, but if 1 pixel on the S3 is blurred to 2 pixels, it would likely be a large reduction.  I would have to guess that it goes to a factor of 4 (meaning squared).  Clearly at some level it would work, but I have not tried either.

(I just use a tripod)

[irenedp]

17 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Does the S3 really shake any more than the S2 or S 007? Or is it that the higher resolution makes camera shake more apparent? What I am getting at here is can one just downsize S3 images to remove camera shake to some extent.

it should shake the same as the camera weighs about the same. But it is way more apparent. what works at 1/90th with the S2 would have a bad shake at 100% in the S3. Good for instagram but not for a print. 

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, irenedp said:

it should shake the same as the camera weighs about the same. But it is way more apparent. what works at 1/90th with the S2 would have a bad shake at 100% in the S3. Good for instagram but not for a print. 

So, back to my original proposition. If one reduces the image resolution of an S3 file to match that of an S2, would that eliminate the visible camera shake?

[ImmerDraussen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you reduce the resolution of two 60 MPx pictures down to 6 MPx (still enough for a picture full screen), it will be impossible to judge whether one of the original files was shaken by one pixel. So in principle a resolution reduction will hide shake.

Going down from 66 MPx to 37 MPx will be a reduction of resolution in each direction half a pixel pitch. Additionally the contrast of the lens for this fine structures is already very low. 
 

A visible camera shake should be much more than one pixel. So a resolution reduction by 0,5 pixel in each direction will hardly be visible.

[PhotoCruiser]

Am 16.2.2025 um 20:17 schrieb Pieter12:

It seems that camera shake can be more apparent with high-resolution sensors.

Higher megapixels will show more defects due the higher resolution,
one of them is micro-blur due camera shake, other for example can be defects of lenses or sensor.
Thats the back draw oh high megapixel cameras, they need more perfection than low MP cameras and i had to get used to that when i bought my D800 back then.
Yes, recording in lower MP can help, however this renders the idea of high megapixel sensors "useless" and in this case and for limited cropping and enlarging the photos a lower MP camera would be less expensive.

However, a good, stable tripod with a weight bag attached and for hand held shooting a good in camera and/or in-lens camera shake correction/reduction and shooting at much higher shutter speeds than before, i almost never shoot below 1/250 sec to avoid micro-blur, 1/500 will be better

Chris

Edited February 20 by PhotoCruiser

[Stuart Richardson]

The megapixels do not matter. It is a function of magnification. Assuming all else being equal, the blur was always there, you just did not have the magnification to see it. So yes, if you don't magnify as much it won't be visible.

Also, I hate to say this, but none of us are getting any younger (even us that are still in middle age), and it is also quite possible that the camera is getting shakier because you are a decade older with an S3 than you were with an S2 etc. Not a consideration in every case, but certainly one for some of us.

Edited February 20 by Stuart Richardson

[Tirpitz666]

For what I've experienced personally with my 006, for shooting handheld 1/(2xFL) is required to be 100% sure to not experience micro blur, sometimes with the not too long lenses one can get away with 1/(1,5xFL), but anything below would be at risk. I would assume that on the S3 you will have to shorten the timings even more, given it's double the resolution.

I've also noticed that below 1/50 or so, even with short FL lenses, there is the risk to experience microblur due to most likely mirror slap. 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Tirpitz666 said:

I would assume that on the S3 you will have to shorten the timings even more, given it's double the resolution.

I am sorry to nit-pick, but double the megapixels isn't double the resolution. You need four times the number of pixels to double the (theoretical) resolution. The jump in pixels between the S-007/S-006/S2 and S3 is only 1.7x, which might mean a 20% resolution increase. It's not nothing, but it's not as much as the headline numbers would suggest.