toxdoc42

I scanned another image from the shoot, and rescanned the one i used as a discussion. Here are the results.

I really don't understand all of the terminology. Why is dpi on the scanner different than on the image, why still such small files?

I do wander if the model is still alive. She was very concerned that the photos not end up in a girlie magazine, afraid her father would see them and be upset. Yes, a release was signed, as part of the requirement for the course. It is amazing looking back on the images now, I feel almost like Pygmalion! LOL

scanned at setting 1200 dpi, image detail data says 219 kb, 1652X1069 and 276 dpi

(Download)

used Topaz AI on the image, now data says 206 kb, 1650X605 ans 275 again

(Download)

rescanned at 1200 setting, data now says 140 kb, 1650X 605, 275 dpi

(Download)

rescanned as above then Topaz AI now data says 206 kb, 1650X605 and 275 dpi

(Download)

took the AI processed one and did a little adjusting of the lighting, the data only changed by increasing to 216 kb.

(Download)

Jim Tonne

ToxDoc:

All of these images are 1201 pixels wide or wider and so "Store original" should work. And it does ! Dots per inch and megapixel size should have no effect. I posted the results of an exhausting test yesterday bit Admin moved it to another forum.

- JimT

toxdoc42

the original i posted was 811 X 396

Jim Tonne

TD:

I am afraid I may not have made myself clear. The MINIMUM image width for that function to work is 1201 pixels wide. Yours that did not work was 811 pixels wide. 811 is less than 1201 and so it ain't gonna work, as they say down South. Resize it to 1201 pixels wide and it will work nicely.

- JimT

toxdoc42

Now I understand what you are saying, so it is the horizontal measurement that determines the download ability. Interestingly, in my photo club, the maximum width for submission to contests is 1600. I really still can't conceptualize pixels versus dpi, and how it relates to actual measurements. Perhaps I am overthinking.

Jim Tonne

TD:

YES !! And, curiosly enough, nothing else.

- JT

toxdoc42

That is so weird! Great pick up! That requirement should be stated in directions for the site.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Pixels, ppi (pixels per inch) and dpi (dots per inch) is pretty simple. Note: ppi is a monitor spec, while dpi is a printer spec.

Let's say a photo image is 1600 pixels wide, and let's make everything a scale of 1:1.

On an old computer monitor with a (low) resolution of 72 ppi the photo would be 1600/72=22 inches wide.

If the monitor has a higher resolution, say 200 ppi (Mac monitors are about that) the photo would be 1600/200=8 inches wide on the screen.

iPhone 14 has approximately 460 ppi, so that image would be 3.47 inches wide.

If the photo is printed on a printer with a (moderate) resolution of 300 dpi the printed photo would be 1600/300=5.3 inches wide.

And if you display that photo on a large LED wall outdoor sign display with 8 ppi the photo would be 200 inches wide. Of course, you would be sitting far back from the display to enjoy the image, not watching the individual LEDs light up.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

One beautiful woman indeed. Amazing what AI does to old photos... it reserrected my old 3.1 Mp Raw top of the line Kodak 4800 JPEGS ... I love my Topaz magic tools.

ToxDoc said: "I do wonder if the model is still alive?" I have the same woundes about my beautiful lady friends of decades ago.

I do not want to know the reality of today, memories are better... I stay away from the "Movie Star" then-and-now programs on Youtube... Time is not kind, and too much food is not kind. Cigarette smoke is what the vineyards use to turn grapes into withered raisins... does same to skin~!

toxdoc42

Thanks, but i guess I am pretty thick. It would seem to me that if the image is large, with the same number of pixels, it will be of lower resolution, thus appear blurred or break up. The standard 35 mm film had an image of a little over an inch and a quarter in width and just a little under an inch tall. I was under the impression that a full sensor on a digital camera is about the same dimension.

I did a google and found lots of controversial information, such as one which said "the angular resolution" of film is equivalent to a resolution range of 4-16 megapixels, well less than on my Nikon. The same source states that Kodachrome, which I thought to be the sharpest color film ever made, of 10 megapixels.

Another source stated that, comparing film and digital: "This is much the same as the sensor sizes on digital cameras. However, unlike digital cameras, film can capture and store at greater resolutions. Feb 27, 2021"

Another source says: "Film captures photos at a higher resolution than most digital cameras because the resulting photos have more pixels per inch. Exact resolution will differ from camera to camera and will also depend on the type of film you use, but generally speaking, using film will give you a higher-quality, crisper image. Sep 27, 2021"

Even more confusing was this statement" "Is 4K higher resolution than 35mm film?
It is estimated that 35mm film has a digital resolution equivalent to 4K: 35mm Imax film equates to 6K, while 70mm Imax is closer to 12K. Regardless of how they are shot, most films will be converted into a digital format for editing, colour grading and VFX (called digital intermediate and usually at 2K resolution). Nov 7, 2017"

A recent discussion on CameraSnipe.com makes things even mirkier for me:

https://camerasnipe.com/difference-between-35mm-film-resolution-digital/?expand_article=1