Apples

Apples

by Garik

submit your photo


Picture of the Week Themes
Suggest and vote on themes

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tell me more ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite
1

Is there a calculation that I can do that will calculate the required shutter speed if I know the speed of my subject and want to get a crisp image e.g. freeze motion?

For example if I go to a car race and focus on a particular corner, where I know the max speed of the cars - is there a calculation I can do to work out my shutter speed before I setup?

Or if I know the speed at which the Earth rotates can I devise a perfect shutter speed to freeze the moon?

Would be amazing if you could devise an optimum shutter speed per subject chart, like a shutter speed cheat-sheet?

share|improve this question
2  
I think the problem with a cheat sheet is that the situations where all the variables are known within enough tolerance to be useful are rare. – mattdm Apr 15 '12 at 12:21
You're right, mattdm. However, most of the variables do not need to be known. If you gauge subject speed (relative to the camera) in terms of how long it might take to cross the field of view, you arrive at an extremely simple solution: divide that time by the length of the sensor in pixels to obtain an exposure duration that will cause less than one pixel of blur. Adjust that answer to meet your personal standards of sharpness (and to match the lens's sharpness). The formula is so simple, and so little needs to be memorized (sensor size), that this works well in the field. – whuber Apr 15 '12 at 14:29

3 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Shutter speed can be calculated - all you have to do it calculate the time it takes the subject to move one pixel in the image.

Unsurprisingly, other people already made those calculators, there's one here and another here

I've even seen a cheat sheet like you want but I can't find it right now (I was sure I bookmarked it)

share|improve this answer
@Nir has the basic, how many pixels can you tolerate being blurred. Your example parts are actually bad examples. The moon is in direct daylight, so its bright and you typically shoot at F5.6 with a fast shutter speed. For race cars, you never want to freeze motion, they will look like museum pieces. You typically use a slow speed and pan to show the motion. – Pat Farrell Apr 15 '12 at 16:27
Would love to see that cheat sheet if you find it – Rob Apr 15 '12 at 17:45
1  
@Rob - I just can't find it, if I find it in the future I'll link to it from my answer – Nir Apr 15 '12 at 21:04
up vote 5 down vote

I did some math and came up with this:

t = 3.6 * N * d * s / (v * f * res_x)

where

  • t ... time [s]
  • N ... number of pixels
  • d ... distance between object and focal plane [m]
  • s ... horizontal size of sensor [mm]
  • v ... object speed [km/h]
  • f ... focal length [mm]
  • res_x ... horizontal resolution of sensor

N means how many pixels you will tolerate the object to be "smudged" over. It is the maximum distance in pixels you want to allow the object to move on your image.

An example

Let's assume I have a fullframe camera with a 50mm lens, and I am taking a photo of a walking person, who moves perpendicular to me (at a speed of 5 km/h) and is 10 meters distant. I tolerate movement on the image by 8 pixels. My photos are 4288x2848.

t = 3.6 * 8 * 10 * 36 / (5 * 50 * 4288) = 0.00967 [s]
t = (1 / 103) [s]

Note:

I assume I have a tripod and the camera doesn't move. Otherwise, you will have to recompute the speed of the object relative to your camera.

share|improve this answer
Oh my, the grammar was really awful. Thanks for edit :) – Petr Újezdský Apr 15 '12 at 13:38
1  
I believe d is actually the distance between the object and the focal plane, not the object and lens. – Dan Wolfgang Apr 15 '12 at 20:28
You are right, I have corrected it. – Petr Újezdský Apr 15 '12 at 21:34
up vote 2 down vote

While it's possible to reduce this to a calculation, I question how valuable it would be. I don't think most people are going to be accurate enough at estimating subject distance and exact speed in order to be able to pull this off.

Instead, I think you would learn from experience much faster. If nothing else, bring something like a Hoodman loupe along, and chimp your photos with several different shutter speeds.

Even once you figure out exactly how fast to freeze a race car, you'll then get into an aesthetic issue of making it look nice. Frozen helicopter blades and frozen tires aren't necessarily the best way to capture the feeling. :)

share|improve this answer
1  
Agreed. Plus, how long is it going to take to do the math and how quickly is the subject moving? By the time you estimate the subject distance and speed, check your focal length (if you're using a zoom), and actually do the math (and you'll almost definitely need a calculator to plug such specific numbers in), the subject will have moved -- and perhaps even passed you! Learning from experience will be much easier, I think! – Dan Wolfgang Apr 15 '12 at 20:31
and you might also move the camera with the subject to keep it still, while the background blurs. – Michael Nielsen Sep 22 '12 at 17:43

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.