Photon wrote:
Nill, I don\'t think you\'re confused, I think some people are confusing the issue.
For example, I would like to see an example of a sports image shot at 1/1000 sec on film, printed at 24x36, and scanned at sufficient res to match a 1D4 image at 100% (or of course just compare two large prints). I didn\'t shoot sports in my film days, unless you count a few college basketball shots, but I\'m skeptical of some of the claims I\'m seeing here. That is, I really think that if we are considering a particular fast action moment, shooting from a particular spot, and framing a particular way, motion blur will depend only on shutter speed. Motion blur may be masked or made apparent by other aspects of image sharpness, which will be affected by a host of factors (all of them probably mentioned in one post or another), but that one characteristic (motion blur) should not change with sensor resolution, sensor size, film to digital, or for that matter even lens resolution. Just keep in mind that when everything else that can yield a higher resolution, sharper image has been done, the effect of any motion blur will be maximized.
If the image is sharp on film, I dont think it matters what size print you make, the image is sharp. period. If the swing bat is frozen and tack sharp, it will be sharp on the print. This phenomenon has been battered around by many of us shooting pro sports who are seeing motion blur in images since the Mark 3, where there should be none and I am intrigued about this angular resolution angle. Simply, in the film days 1/2000 of a second was very rarely shot or needed to stop a bat or arms moving . But know, many of us are having to shoot at that or about to achieve less motion blur. While shooting film and basketball, you never needed to shoot at 1/1000 of a second to freeze a player\'s arms while driving to the basket, but for some reason know you do.
Mar 13, 2010 at 09:44 PM
Previous versions of jprisching's message #8237830 « Pixel density and motion blur »
