Is there any generally accepted heuristic for finding an 'optimal' ratio of the two like the nyquist frequency for sampling.
spegeerino
@zy5476 I wouldn't think so, because of what's said on the next slides. There are many different goals when taking a photo; if you're taking a picture of someone sitting in the rain, maybe you want a high depth of field so that their silhouette is emphasized while the rain kind of disappears in the blur. Alternatively, maybe you want to capture a kingfisher grabbing some fish out of a pond: then you'd probably want as little motion blur as possible to capture the fast movement, and reducing depth of field can help the eye focus on the important part of the picture. There's a lot of options when it comes to photography and what exactly you want to capture, so there's no one "optimal" solution to the tradeoff between depth of field and motion blur.
sueyoungshim
It's very interesting and kind of scary how her hand blends in with the background and what might be causing that. Also it explains some of the photos that look as if ghosts are in the picture.
razvanturcu
@sueyoungshim I think there are multiple reasons to seeing "ghost-like" movement in pictures. The focal length is I think one of the main ones since we are magnifying minor movements through longer lenses. Another reason we saw in lecture was the shutter speed, which means that if the shutter is open for a longer period of time, the more the ghost will blend with the background. I would be curious to see if there will still be a motion blur in the picture on the right if we had a faster shutter. When I watch soccer replays/pictures in which the subject is very zoomed in and moving and there is no focus, there is usually no motion blur. I think that has to do with the shutter speed.
rishiskhare
@sueyoungshim That is such an interesting observation. I wonder why the hand specifically was removed from the image - perhaps she was waving at the time and the blur was misrepresented. It's really strange, and I haven't seen anything like this before...
JunoLee128
Is the coloring different in the photos with/without motion blur? It feels like it would be maybe harder to capture at least the detailed highlights - e.g. gradations in the flowers or designs in background
Is there any generally accepted heuristic for finding an 'optimal' ratio of the two like the nyquist frequency for sampling.
@zy5476 I wouldn't think so, because of what's said on the next slides. There are many different goals when taking a photo; if you're taking a picture of someone sitting in the rain, maybe you want a high depth of field so that their silhouette is emphasized while the rain kind of disappears in the blur. Alternatively, maybe you want to capture a kingfisher grabbing some fish out of a pond: then you'd probably want as little motion blur as possible to capture the fast movement, and reducing depth of field can help the eye focus on the important part of the picture. There's a lot of options when it comes to photography and what exactly you want to capture, so there's no one "optimal" solution to the tradeoff between depth of field and motion blur.
It's very interesting and kind of scary how her hand blends in with the background and what might be causing that. Also it explains some of the photos that look as if ghosts are in the picture.
@sueyoungshim I think there are multiple reasons to seeing "ghost-like" movement in pictures. The focal length is I think one of the main ones since we are magnifying minor movements through longer lenses. Another reason we saw in lecture was the shutter speed, which means that if the shutter is open for a longer period of time, the more the ghost will blend with the background. I would be curious to see if there will still be a motion blur in the picture on the right if we had a faster shutter. When I watch soccer replays/pictures in which the subject is very zoomed in and moving and there is no focus, there is usually no motion blur. I think that has to do with the shutter speed.
@sueyoungshim That is such an interesting observation. I wonder why the hand specifically was removed from the image - perhaps she was waving at the time and the blur was misrepresented. It's really strange, and I haven't seen anything like this before...
Is the coloring different in the photos with/without motion blur? It feels like it would be maybe harder to capture at least the detailed highlights - e.g. gradations in the flowers or designs in background