Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
Thread started 31 Dec 2008 (Wednesday) 03:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Question Megapixel And DPI?

 
jcsurfn
Member
Avatar
59 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Pismo Beach, CA
     
Dec 31, 2008 03:13 |  #1

Is there any difference between megapixel and dpi? Or are they the same? I know dpi is dots per inch.

When I take my photos into photoshop and check the image before I mess with it it says 72 dpi.

So if were to scan in a 3 x 5 film photo would I be able to make a nice 8 x 10 with that like I could if I took it with the photos I took with my xti at 10.1 megapixel?

Also, maybe not the place to ask this but I want to scan in some old photos and they are a photo print and I think they are a 3 x 5 maybe. I want to be able to take them on a flash drive to make a nice 8 x 10 so should I scan them in at as high as dpi as I can? or is 100 dpi good enough or more?

sorry staying up late and playing around.:lol:

Thank You




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,497 posts
Likes: 213
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Dec 31, 2008 06:14 |  #2

There is a very big difference. A digital image is measured in pixels wide and pixels high. Width times height gives resolution in megapixels.
When Photoshop says dpi it really means ppi, pixels per inch. That is the number of pixels that will go in to making one inch along the edge of a print. Usually, 300 dpi is considered best for optimum quality. That means that for an 8x10 print you need [8x300=2400 pixels]x[10x300=3000 pixels]. If you are scanning a 3x5 photo, in order to get the needed 2400 pixels along the short side you divide 2400 by 3 inches which gives you 800. If you set the scanner to 800 dpi you will get a 2400x4000 pixels image which can then be cropped to 2400x3000.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Dec 31, 2008 06:33 |  #3

.. but even then, you won't get any detail in the 8x10 print that wasn't in the 3x5 to begin with. (And the ratio is different by the way, so a 3x5 would give a 6x10)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ook
Senior Member
Avatar
648 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Dec 31, 2008 09:50 |  #4

If you can find the negative somewhere, and scan that in a film scanner, all problems will be solved.


John-Allan
40D | 11-16mm f/2.8 | 17-55mm f/2.8 IS | 100mm f/2.8 macro | 430ex | A650IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,497 posts
Likes: 213
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Dec 31, 2008 09:51 |  #5

so a 3x5 would give a 6x10

Or a 8x13.3


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Dec 31, 2008 14:14 |  #6

:lol:
Yeah, but my math had just run out...


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 467
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jan 01, 2009 08:20 as a reply to  @ René Damkot's post |  #7

JC, if it is showing 72 dpi, that's the way you have it set up in your preferences menu or maybe somewhere else.
I have mine dialed in for 300 dpi.

Someone will chime in to tell you where to change it.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 165
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jan 01, 2009 09:55 |  #8

chauncey wrote in post #6981896 (external link)
JC, if it is showing 72 dpi, that's the way you have it set up in your preferences menu or maybe somewhere else.
I have mine dialed in for 300 dpi.

The "72 DPI" number is embedded into files created by most Canon EOS DSLRs. It means absolutely nothing and should be totally ignored. The only thing that matters is the pixel count in the image. Software will take care of resolution issues when you define the print size you wish to make.

When you want to make a print and you care about the minimum resolution, merely divide the dimensions of the intended print into the pixel count of the image for the related dimensions.

I absolutely NEVER down-size a print before sending to a printer (or having it printed commercially). There's no benefit whatsoever and you will definitely lose quality in your image doing so. There's absolutely nothing wrong about having an image that has twice (or more) the minimum resolution that you wish to print with.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 467
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jan 01, 2009 10:46 as a reply to  @ SkipD's post |  #9

My bad, I ass-u-med that you were in Photoshop.  :o


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Jan 01, 2009 12:14 |  #10

Ook wrote in post #6976449 (external link)
If you can find the negative somewhere, and scan that in a film scanner, all problems will be solved.

I agree that would be your best option. You can buy scanners that have attachments to put the negatives though as well... or bring the negatives to a store and have them scan them and burn to CD (I asked at our local Walmart, they said it would be 3megapixel images.. I don't really know about other places). That would be fine for 8x10 anyways.


It depends on how detailed you want your picture to be.. I've scanned 4x6 image and I think it would look "OK" printed at 8x10 (perhaps a little sharpening would help).


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcsurfn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
59 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Pismo Beach, CA
     
Jan 01, 2009 23:07 as a reply to  @ DStanic's post |  #11

I have some old surfing photos of me that I want to scan in and make into a 8 x 10. I do not have the negatives. I lost them a long time ago. I will probably just scan in at a high dpi and crop and sharpen.:lol:

Thank You




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

5,683 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
Question Megapixel And DPI?
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MWCarlsson
908 guests, 147 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.