How can i find the resolution of an image?
Show older comments
Hi, how i can find the resolution of an image with matlab (number of pixels in millimeter). thanks
3 Comments
Negesse Tadesse
on 24 Aug 2019
EASY:
use imfinfo() function and take
xresolution
and
yresolution field.
Image Analyst
on 24 Aug 2019
See solutions below. What imfinfo gives you might not always contain xresolution, and when it does, it may not be correct or what you think. For example
fi = imfinfo('cameraman.tif')
gives 72 inches. Obviously not correct or even applicable. However, it might be correct depending on the image capture system.
Walter Roberson
on 24 Aug 2019
In my experience, XResolution and YResolution information returned by imfinfo() is wrong much much more often than it is correct.
Answers (6)
Use 'imfinfo'
E.g.
info = imfinfo('new1.jpg')
info =
Filename: [1x95 char]
FileModDate: '01-Oct-2001 17:19:44'
FileSize: 27387
Format: 'jpg'
FormatVersion: ''
Width: 600
Height: 650
BitDepth: 24
ColorType: 'truecolor'
FormatSignature: ''
NumberOfSamples: 3
CodingMethod: 'Huffman'
CodingProcess: 'Sequential'
Comment: {[1x69 char]}
There you can fine the resolution widthxheight bit depth etc..
10 Comments
Carole
on 16 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 16 Nov 2012
Apply it to a file name, not an image that has already been read into memory. Images read into memory do not have resolutions associated with them.
Carole
on 16 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 16 Nov 2012
Edited: Walter Roberson
on 24 Aug 2019
24 is 8 bits per color plane, 3 color planes. It has nothing to do with spatial resolution.
When images include resolution in their header information (uncommon for regular cameras, but sometimes appear for scientific devices), it is the image resolution rather than the device resolution. Devices do not always do physical scanning or image acquisition in exactly the same way that the images are constructed, so the resolution reported has to be the effective resolution. Also, depending on what the device is, any particular saved image might be down-converted from what was saved by the device, so the reported resolution (if it is there at all) has to match the image, not what the device could give.
Carole
on 16 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 16 Nov 2012
3779 pixels per meter, or 3.779 pixels per millimeter, according to that data.
Carole
on 16 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 16 Nov 2012
Good point, Eric. Carole, is the image of a single spot or is it of a larger area that you moved along?
Carole, XResolution is an optional EXIF tag. In most cases it is not known or not meaningful.
Carole
on 16 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 16 Nov 2012
1 vote
Most often, you cannot figure out what the resolution of an image is.
If you are using a better-quality camera in auto-focus mode, the EXIF information might include the distance to the focus. If you have that and the lens aperture, then by knowing the height and width in pixels, you can calculate the angle subtended by the pixel range, and thus the angular resolution. (Perhaps you do not need the aperture; I have forgotten the details of the calculation.)
If you are using a medical device such as CT or MRI, then the images for those are usually created as DICOM images, for which there is DICOM meta-data that includes the resolution in the PixelWidth tag.
2 Comments
Eric
on 16 Nov 2012
Edited: Walter Roberson
on 24 Aug 2019
It looks to me like the device has no imaging capability ( http://www.delasco.com/pcat/1/Diagnostic/Delta20/Delta20/ ). You need to pair it with another camera. I would say your best bet would be to do your own calibration of the systems. You could buy a resolution target (something like an Air Force 1951 resolution target from Edmund Optics) that has small features of known sizes. Image them and determine what the resolution is that way.
-Eric
7 Comments
Walter Roberson
on 17 Nov 2012
Those numbers are inconsistent. In particular there must be a problem with the second figure. 41.1 megapixel is a measure of area, not of length, but the second line is megapixels to length.
The 3.937 pixels/mm indicated here is suspiciously like the 3.779 pixels/mm that we calculated above.
To get the right number of megapixels, estimating the aspect ratio as 3/2 (as in the 498 x 750 image above) would require about 5230 x 7845, and at 3.937 pixels/mm that would be over 20 meters on the shorter side.
Carole
on 17 Nov 2012
Image Analyst
on 17 Nov 2012
No. You need to have some object or length in your image that you know what the length is and then measure it. I wouldn't trust anything that's in the metadata/exit unless it's from a calibrated system (CT, MRI, microscopy).
Walter Roberson
on 17 Nov 2012
3.779527559 is exactly the figure for 96 pixels per inch. Which is a common screen resolution, but not a common camera resolution. The magnification is irrelevant: pixels divided by 96 equals inches.
The only time magnification would be important would be if the image you get is of a 10x magnification of the 96 pixels/inch. In that case, 96*10 image pixels would be 1 inch of original size. Alternately, it could be the case that the original surface is magnified 10x and then the 3.779 pixels/mm (96 dpi) is what the magnified image is recorded as, so getting an actual resolution of 37.79 pixels/mm.
Carole
on 17 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 18 Nov 2012
How about you tell us the make and model of what you are using, so we can see if we can understand the manual?
Palguna Gopireddy
on 27 Nov 2022
If you have studied the Digital Image Processing by Gonzalez Book. You understand that 'Resolution can't be explicitely mentioned using the pixels. It has to be mentioned along with dpi value'. For exmaple 512*512 image with 72dpi has better resolution compared to 512*512 image with 36dpi
Image Analyst
on 18 Nov 2012
Edited: Image Analyst
on 18 Nov 2012
0 votes
Carole, Sure, go for it. So multiply any lengths in pixels by 0.022 to get length in mm, and multiply and area in pixels by 0.022^2 to get area in mm^2. Of if you know the length and height of the total image field of view then you can use that too. For example, if the height = 960 pixels and it's 21 mm. Then the spatial calibration factor is 21/960 = 0.021875 mm per pixel. So let's say an object is 342 pixels long, well that's 342 * 0.021875 = 7.48125 mm long. If the area = 20,000 pixels, it's 20,000 * 0.021875^2 = 9.57 mm^2 in area.
10 Comments
Carole
on 19 Nov 2012
Image Analyst
on 19 Nov 2012
No, that's not. You can't use any number that you look up somewhere. They have no idea what you imaged or the spatial calibration that may be needed. You can't trust the camera either unless it's a calibrated system like CT, MRI, or Microscopy where they make sure to embed the accurate spatial calibration in the header or EXIF info. Let's say that you took a picture of me standing in front of a bunch of trees with the moon overhead. Your camera will tell you the resolution in terms of pixels - how many pixels tall and wide your image is, but the number of millimeters one pixel corresponds to depends on what you're looking at. Even though you have the same camera with the same focal length and same CCD size, one pixel on me might be 2 mm, while one pixel on the tree in the distance behind me might be 200 mm, and one pixel on the moon might be 200 kilometers if you were measuring something on the moon. That's why you need to measure some known length (like a ruler) and that's why that spatial calibration only applies in the imaging plane where the thing was measured, not for anything closer or farther away. Does that help illustrate the issue to you better?
Walter Roberson
on 19 Nov 2012
Knowing the equipment make and model would help a lot.
Image Analyst
on 19 Nov 2012
Something doesn't add up. You say the image is 498 rows by 750 columns. The spec sheet says "40 mm Field of View (flat field)" which would give a 40/750 = 0.053 mm per pixel. But the spec sheet also says "DermaScout Dermatoscope measures in 0.1 mm increments" and "Measures in .005" increments" which are pretty vague. If they give resolution, they usually give the pixel width. But they give about twice the pixel width. If you don't give the pixel width then they usually give the 10% point of the MTF. Bottom line, this thing has a marked reticle in it so why can't you just use that to find out the true spatial calibration.
Walter Roberson
on 19 Nov 2012
The reason they don't give pixel width (it seems to me) is that that device does not take images. No camera attachment, no interfaces noted. It is, it looks to me, a hand-held device with some kind of markings to allow you to estimate sizes.
Carole
on 19 Nov 2012
Walter Roberson
on 20 Nov 2012
The UNICO dermatoscope that you linked to has no way of taking images. It is also only 6x rather than the 10x you referred to earlier. These factors suggest that you indicated the wrong dermatoscope to us. For example the Heine Delta 20 that the store also sells is 10x and has some kind of provision for photography.
All three of the dermatoscope that store sells are marked as being for sale in USA only; I have formed the impression that you are in France instead ?
Image Analyst
on 20 Nov 2012
Carole, how did you say this earlier:
I get this result
Width: 750
Height: 498
BitDepth: 24
Evidently you have some kind of camera hooked up to this loupe and are able to take pictures somehow. Please take a picture of something with the reticule in place, and upload it, so we can measure the spatial calibration.
Walter Roberson
on 20 Nov 2012
Especially a picture of something of known size, such as a ruler.
Image Analyst
on 20 Nov 2012
The how did you get the pictures? Did you get them from that dermascope or not? If not, where did they come from and what does the dermascope have to do with anything?
And the print size has nothing at all to do with any kind of distance in your image. I could print a picture of a galaxy and a picture of a virus both on the same size paper printout with the same size image pixel dimensions. But of course their spatial calibration is vastly different.
TIAN YUAN WANG
on 30 Jun 2017
0 votes
I'm sure you can get the FOV size from the Dicominfo.
If the FOV is 400 mm, matrix is 512 by 512; then the Resolution = FOV/matrix = 400/512 = 0.7813 mm/pixel.
1 Comment
Walter Roberson
on 30 Jun 2017
Unfortunately the person was working with a png not with a dicom image.
Looking at the fov is typically the wrong way to get sizing from dicom images. The best way depends upon what kind of image it is. I do not recall the best way for CT. MRI images have a pixel centre to centre for x and y that can be used. (The tricky part is determining the z resolution)
Antonis L
on 16 Jun 2020
0 votes
Ιs it possible to find the real image dimensions of a .jpeg, through the XResolution and the YResolution given from the imfinfo function, without the pixel/mm reconstruction factor? Τhank you in advance
6 Comments
Walter Roberson
on 16 Jun 2020
No. If your JPEG image does not have additional EXIF information recorded that would allow you to compute the pixel/mm somehow (such as focal distance and lens aperture) then chances are high that whatever XResolution and YResolution it has recorded are nominal values, such as the equivalent of 96 dpi, that have nothing to do with the actual image resolution.
Antonis L
on 16 Jun 2020
Thank you very much, Walter, for your instant answer!
Image Analyst
on 16 Jun 2020
Imagine you were in your backyard holding up a poster of the moon and taking a video or photo. One pixel might represent millimeters on the poster and the field of view might be a meter. Now imagine you yanked away the poster and revealed the real moon in the sky behind it. Now a pixel correponds to kilometers on the real moon and the field of view could be tens of millions of kilometers.
Antonis L
on 3 Aug 2020
Could you please explain me the most common mathematical type of convertion the dimension of a .jpeg from pixel to mm, which correlates focal length or lens aperture with the dimensions? Thank you in advance!
Image Analyst
on 4 Aug 2020
No. It's not possible. There is no such conversion that works for all or most jpg images and all/most fields of view. You have to calibrate your specific image. See attached spatial calibration demo.
Walter Roberson
on 5 Aug 2020
You would need to know the distance between the image sensor and the lens:
When f is the focal length and 
is the distance between the sensor and the lens, and 
is the distance between the lens and the object being photographed, then
is the distance between the sensor and the lens, and is the distance between the lens and the object being photographed, then
By knowing the image sensor physical size, and its resolution, and the portion of the image that the object of interest occupies, you can determine the physical size of the sensor portion covered by the projection of the image. Then you can use the recorded readings such as aperture and distance to the target together with the optical formulas, to figure out what the physical size of the distant object must have been. You then combine the physical size of the object with the number of pixels needed to represent it to find the resolution.
Alternately if you know the physical size of the object and the number of pixels needed to represent that size, you can directly calculate resolution.
The further you get from the object, the more imprecise the calculations get. It doesn't take much in casual photography before 
is sufficiently smaller than 
as to get lost in the noise of the imprecision of measuring 
is sufficiently smaller than as to get lost in the noise of the imprecision of measuring Categories
Find more on Convert Image Type in Help Center and File Exchange
on 27 Nov 2022
Community Treasure Hunt
Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!
Start Hunting!
