Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 304180" data-attributes="member: 12496">OK in that comparison case, only because the lesser 12mp image never had the resolution in the first place, blurred or not.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Cannot say it is better, we just turned the volume down so we don't hear it as well (so to speak).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The one pixel image seems about like not even taking the image in the first place ... either of which methods should eliminate the blur, so to speak.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or you could use fewer larger pixels, or you could defocus the image, as two other ways to reduce the resolution (to hide detail, less well seen). The detail might be missing, but the image area is always there, and the blur is covering that image area.&nbsp; If you shake the camera, you're going to have blur.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The size of that blur area is simply not affected by pixel size or resolution.&nbsp; Its area size is affected by sensor size, by lens focal length, by focus distance, shutter speed, etc, but not by pixel size.&nbsp; Techies always seem to think as if the pixels create the image, which loses sight of the truth.&nbsp; The lens creates the image and projects it onto the sensor (including any motion blur), and pixels simply provide resolution to sample the color of tiny areas of the sensor, to attempt to reproduce the analog image that the lens projected.We can discuss pixel size in regard to added noise, or reproduction dynamic range, or reproduction quality, but blur is a property of the projected lens image...&nbsp; that we are merely trying to reproduce.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 304180, member: 12496"] OK in that comparison case, only because the lesser 12mp image never had the resolution in the first place, blurred or not. :) Cannot say it is better, we just turned the volume down so we don't hear it as well (so to speak). The one pixel image seems about like not even taking the image in the first place ... either of which methods should eliminate the blur, so to speak. Or you could use fewer larger pixels, or you could defocus the image, as two other ways to reduce the resolution (to hide detail, less well seen). The detail might be missing, but the image area is always there, and the blur is covering that image area. If you shake the camera, you're going to have blur. The size of that blur area is simply not affected by pixel size or resolution. Its area size is affected by sensor size, by lens focal length, by focus distance, shutter speed, etc, but not by pixel size. Techies always seem to think as if the pixels create the image, which loses sight of the truth. The lens creates the image and projects it onto the sensor (including any motion blur), and pixels simply provide resolution to sample the color of tiny areas of the sensor, to attempt to reproduce the analog image that the lens projected. We can discuss pixel size in regard to added noise, or reproduction dynamic range, or reproduction quality, but blur is a property of the projected lens image... that we are merely trying to reproduce. [/QUOTE]

Verification