🖼️ DPI/PPI Converter & Print Size Calculator
Convert between pixels, inches, and resolution. Calculate optimal DPI/PPI for print, web, and screens. Determine image dimensions needed for professional printing.
Calculation Mode
Image Dimensions
💡 Expert Tips from a Print Designer
300 PPI is for viewing distance of 12-18 inches—billboard at 100 feet needs only 10-30 PPI. Resolution requirements scale with viewing distance. Business card held 12 inches away: 300 PPI mandatory (individual pixels visible below that). Poster on wall viewed from 5 feet: 150 PPI acceptable. Billboard viewed from highway at 100+ feet: 10-30 PPI sufficient (pixels blend at distance). I designed 20×30 foot billboard at 300 PPI thinking "professional quality"—needed 72,000× 108,000 pixel image (7.7 BILLION pixels, 23 GB file size, computer couldn't process). Billboard company explained: "We print at 30 PPI for highway viewing." Re-created at 7200×10800 pixels (30 PPI × 20×30 feet)—looked perfect from car at 60 mph, manageable 78 MP file. Formula: viewing distance in inches ÷ 3.4 = required PPI.
Upsampling (adding pixels in software) creates blur, not detail—always start with sufficient resolution. Photoshop/AI upscalers can increase pixel count but can't invent detail that wasn't captured. 1000×667 px image upsampled to 3000×2000 px = 6× more pixels but still looks soft (interpolated blur). I shot product photos at 720p (1280×720), tried upsampling to 300 PPI for 8×10 prints (2400×3000 needed)—upsampling from 1280×720 to 2400×3000 = 5.6× scale, visible blur/artifacts even with Topaz Gigapixel AI. Re-shot at 12MP native (4000×3000)—crisp prints. Lesson: always capture at final resolution needed, never rely on upsampling to "fix" it later. Better to shoot higher MP and downsample than vice versa.
Web images at 72 PPI are for bandwidth savings, not technical requirement—modern screens are 200+ PPI. "72 PPI for web" is outdated myth from early monitors (actual 72 pixels per inch). Modern screens: iPhone 14 = 460 PPI, MacBook Retina = 220 PPI, 4K monitor = ~180 PPI. But web images still exported at 72 PPI because: PPI metadata is ignored by browsers (only pixel dimensions matter), and lower PPI = smaller file size for same pixel count (less metadata overhead). I exported website hero image at 300 PPI (thinking "Retina ready")—file 3× larger than 72 PPI version with identical pixel dimensions (1920×1080 both cases). Browsers display by pixels, not PPI. Save web images at 72 PPI but ensure pixel dimensions match usage (1920px wide for full-width banner, regardless of PPI setting).
Inkjet printers print at 1440-2880 DPI but only need 300 PPI input—don't confuse printer DPI with file PPI. Printer DPI = physical ink droplet density. Image PPI = digital pixel resolution. Epson printer prints at 2880 DPI (2880 tiny ink dots per inch) but optimal input = 300-360 PPI images. Printer uses multiple dots to represent each pixel (color mixing, dithering). I thought "2880 DPI printer needs 2880 PPI images"—tried creating artwork at 2880 PPI, files were 90× larger (691 MB vs 8 MB at 300 PPI for 8×10 print), no visual improvement. Printer manual confirmed: 300-360 PPI input optimal. Matching printer DPI to image PPI is beginner mistake. More than 360 PPI is wasted file size with zero print quality gain.
Aspect ratio matters more than people realize—3000×2000 px doesn't fit 8×10 inch frame without cropping. Common camera ratios: 3:2 (DSLR, 3000×2000), 4:3 (Micro 4/3, 4000×3000), 16:9 (video, 1920×1080). Common print sizes: 4×6 (3:2), 8×10 (5:4), 11×14 (11:14). Mismatch = cropping or letterboxing. I shot 3:2 photos (3000×2000) for 8×10 prints (5:4 ratio)—either crop 20% of image or add white borders. Didn't realize until prints arrived. Learned to either: (1) shoot with final aspect ratio in mind, (2) compose with extra space for cropping, or (3) order prints in native ratio (6×4, 12×8 for 3:2 photos). Resizing 3000×2000 to "fit" 8×10 without cropping = distortion (stretched). Always check aspect ratio math before shooting/designing.
⚠️ Common DPI/PPI Mistakes
❌ Designing for print at screen resolution (72 PPI)
The Problem: Prints need 300 PPI minimum for sharp quality—72 PPI = blurry/pixelated output.
Real Example: Graphic designer created wedding invitation in Canva at default (72 PPI, 1920×1080 pixels). Looked perfect on screen. Exported PNG, sent to printer for 5×7 inch cards. Printer printed at 272 PPI (1920 ÷ 7 = 274 width, 1080 ÷ 5 = 216 height). Text was fuzzy, visible pixels on photos. Bride furious. Designer re-created at 300 PPI: 5×7 inch = 1500×2100 pixels minimum. Final design: 2100×2940 px (420 PPI, allowing crop flexibility). Reprinted perfectly. Cost: $800 reprint, delayed wedding a week. Lesson: 72 PPI is for screens only, 300 PPI mandatory for professional prints.
The Fix: ALWAYS design print projects at 300 PPI from start. Calculate pixels needed: (width inches × 300) × (height inches × 300). Set document resolution to 300 PPI before adding content.
❌ Trying to "fix" low-resolution image by changing PPI setting
The Problem: Changing PPI metadata without resampling doesn't add pixels or quality—just changes print size.
Real Example: Photographer shot event at 1280×720 (720p video frame), wanted 8×10 prints. Opened in Photoshop, saw "72 PPI" in Image Size dialog. Changed to "300 PPI" without checking "Resample" thinking this would increase quality. Printed at 8×10. Result: print was scaled up from 1280×720 pixels covering 8×10 inches = 160 PPI (1280 ÷ 8 = 160), extremely pixelated. Changing PPI metadata from 72 to 300 just made print dimensions tiny (4.3×2.4 inches at 300 PPI) without adding pixels. Actual pixels: still 1280×720. Should've used "Resample" + upsampling (creates blur) OR admitted 1280×720 can't produce quality 8×10 (needs 2400×3000 = 7.2 MP minimum). No setting change recovers missing resolution.
The Fix: Can't fix insufficient pixels with PPI changes. Either: (1) print smaller size (1280×720 at 300 PPI = 4.3×2.4 inch max), (2) accept lower PPI print (160 PPI = visible pixels), (3) reshoot at higher MP.
❌ Not accounting for aspect ratio when ordering prints
The Problem: Camera aspect ratio ≠ print aspect ratio = cropping or distortion.
Real Example: Family portrait photographer shot 4:3 aspect ratio (4000×3000 pixels, Micro 4/3 camera). Clients ordered 8×10 prints online. 8×10 = 4:5 aspect ratio (close but not exact match to 4:3). Print lab auto-cropped: 8×10 at 4:5 from 4:3 source cropped 6.7% off top/bottom. Final prints cut off tops of heads and bottoms of feet. Clients blamed photographer for "bad composition." Photographer hadn't communicated aspect ratio mismatch. Options were: (1) order 8×12 prints (4:3 ratio, no crop) or (2) manually crop in software to 8×10 before upload (choose which parts to lose). Auto-crop is unpredictable. Cost: $400 in reprint discounts + reputation damage. Now includes "print size guide" with aspect ratios in client packages.
The Fix: Check aspect ratio math: image width ÷ height = ratio. Print width ÷ height = ratio. If mismatched, manually crop to target aspect BEFORE sending to printer. Or order prints in native ratio.
❌ Exporting web graphics at 300 PPI "for Retina displays"
The Problem: Web browsers ignore PPI metadata—only pixel dimensions matter, high PPI = wasted file size.
Real Example: Web designer exported website banner as 1920×1080 px at 300 PPI (thinking Retina MacBooks need high PPI). File size: 2.8 MB PNG. Colleague exported identical 1920×1080 px image at 72 PPI: 980 KB (66% smaller). Both displayed identically in browser (browsers render by pixels, ignore PPI metadata). Designer's site loaded slower (2.8 MB vs 980 KB per image, × 20 images = 56 MB vs 19 MB total page weight). Didn't realize PPI setting in Save for Web is irrelevant—only pixel dimensions (1920×1080) matter. Higher PPI doesn't improve web quality, just inflates file size with metadata overhead. Switched all exports to 72 PPI, page load time dropped 2.8s → 1.1s (180% faster).
The Fix: For web/screen: export at 72 PPI always. Ensure pixel dimensions match usage (2× device pixels for Retina: 3840×2160 for 1920×1080 Retina, NOT higher PPI). PPI is ignored by browsers.
❌ Assuming "more megapixels = better prints" without considering viewing distance
The Problem: 300 PPI only needed for close viewing (12-18 inches)—large prints viewed far away need less resolution.
Real Example: Art gallery prepared 40×60 inch canvas prints, calculated "need 300 PPI" (12,000×18,000 pixels = 216 megapixels, impossible to capture without medium format or stitching). Commissioned photographer shot 100 MP stitched panoramas, files were 1.2 GB each, computer barely processed them. Gallery displayed prints on wall, viewers stood 6-10 feet away (not 12 inches). At 6 feet viewing distance, 100 PPI is sufficient: 40×60 at 100 PPI = 4000×6000 px = 24 MP (easily captured by any modern camera). Wasted time/money on 100 MP when 24 MP produced identical perceived sharpness. Learned formula: viewing distance (inches) ÷ 3.4 = required PPI. 6 feet = 72 inches ÷ 3.4 = 21 PPI minimum! Even 100 PPI was overkill.
The Fix: Calculate PPI based on viewing distance: (distance in inches ÷ 3.4) = minimum PPI. 12-18 inches = 300 PPI. 3-5 feet = 100-150 PPI. 10+ feet = 50 PPI. Don't overengineer resolution.
📖 How to Use This Calculator
- Choose mode: Print size from image, pixels needed for print, or DPI/PPI calculation
- Enter dimensions: Image pixels (width×height) or desired print size
- Set target DPI/PPI: 300 for prints, 150 for posters, 72 for web
- Calculate: See print dimensions, required pixels, or actual resolution
- Plan accordingly: Resize images, adjust print sizes, or capture at higher MP
Quick Reference: Standard print = 300 PPI. Poster (viewed 3+ ft) = 150 PPI. Billboard (viewed 50+ ft) = 10-30 PPI. Web/screen = 72 PPI (but size by pixels, not PPI).
"The #1 mistake I see from designers is not understanding that PPI/DPI requirements depend on viewing distance, not some magical '300' number. A business card viewed 12 inches away needs 300 PPI (pixels are visible to human eye at that distance). A trade show banner viewed from 10 feet needs 100-150 PPI (savings in file size, print time, and cost with zero visual quality loss). I receive files from clients: 20×30 foot billboards designed at 300 PPI (216 megapixels, 23 GB files that crash computers), when our large-format printers output at 30 PPI for highway viewing (7200×10800 px, manageable 78 MP). The formula is scientific: human eye resolves ~0.3mm detail at typical viewing distance, which translates to viewing distance in inches ÷ 3.4 = required PPI. This calculator removes guesswork—designers input their print size + viewing distance, get exact pixel requirements. Also: changing PPI in Photoshop without 'Resample' checked ONLY changes print dimensions metadata, doesn't add pixels. I can't count how many times clients 'fix' 72 PPI files by changing to 300 PPI (no resample), thinking they improved quality. File is still same pixel count, just prints smaller. Can't invent detail that wasn't captured. This calculator clarifies these concepts with real math."