You\'re saying it hits more pixels? Yes, because there are more pixels in the frame. But it\'s not passing any more of the frame — i.e., it\'s still only 5 seconds of the 10 degree frame — so again, why should there be any more perceived motion blur?
I also don\'t understand what you mean by blur being roll off. Well, yes I do in the context of your earlier discussion of it, with respect to still images of sharp black lines and knife blades and whatnot. But not with respect to motion blur — you could have (theoretically) a camera with perfect (i.e., zero?) rolloff, and you could still produce plenty of motion blur with a moving subject and a slow shutter speed.
I\'m getting confused again.
Nill
Mar 13, 2010 at 09:12 PM
Previous versions of Nill Toulme's message #8237715 « Pixel density and motion blur »
