This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010C/Y Zeiss Image Post
p.10 #2C/Y Zeiss Image Post
C/Y Tessar 45
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8856595697.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8295565999.jpg
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:51 AM · View previous versions
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8856595697.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8295565999.jpg
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:51 AM · View previous versions
Jul 12, 2010 at 06:26 AM
p.10 #3C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Amazing!
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
cheers,
h.
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
cheers,
h.
Jul 12, 2010 at 08:29 AM
p.10 #4C/Y Zeiss Image Post
haavee wrote:
Amazing!
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
cheers,
h.
Sure, I'll do that for you later tonight or tomorrow night. But I think it should be known that this lens isn't that great at 2.8 "wide open" nor stopped all the way down at f/22. Here, check out this animation; Look at the windshield vertical stabilizer bar (focus point) and notice the softness at f/2.8. Also notice how the colors and micro-contrast go all to crap at f/22. So I try to avoid those stops. In between 2.8 and 4.0 (at about 3.4) it's just fine though - same as it is at f/4.0. But whatever, this lens usually sells for under $200 ($80 ~ $175) so it's relevant I guess.
Here's that anim:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_0643314203.gif
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:51 AM · View previous versions
Amazing!
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
cheers,
h.
Sure, I'll do that for you later tonight or tomorrow night. But I think it should be known that this lens isn't that great at 2.8 "wide open" nor stopped all the way down at f/22. Here, check out this animation; Look at the windshield vertical stabilizer bar (focus point) and notice the softness at f/2.8. Also notice how the colors and micro-contrast go all to crap at f/22. So I try to avoid those stops. In between 2.8 and 4.0 (at about 3.4) it's just fine though - same as it is at f/4.0. But whatever, this lens usually sells for under $200 ($80 ~ $175) so it's relevant I guess.
Here's that anim:http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_0643314203.gif
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:51 AM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2010 at 02:20 AM
p.10 #5C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Hi bifurcator,
Thanks, be looking forward to it!
The animation is fun to watch and illustrative. From f/16 you see the diffraction kicking in (if I am correct). Actually I'm somewhat surprised at the (maybe exaggerated) softness even past f/8. The f/16 and f/22 stops I rarely use on any lens ... I have not yet had a lens which produces good images at those settings.
My M42 Tessar can be pretty sharp at f/2.8 - I think it's more related to focussingdistance than anything else. I think I've read in the ZF/ZE/ZM thread (or any of the other Zeiss related threads) that indeed lensperformance may be quite different between close-up or at infinity.
Thanks again so far!
cheers,
h.
Jul 13, 2010 at 02:52 AM
p.10 #6C/Y Zeiss Image Post
haavee wrote:
Hi bifurcator,
Thanks, be looking forward to it!
The animation is fun to watch and illustrative. From f/16 you see the diffraction kicking in (if I am correct).
Yeah, that's right. The aperture blades get in the way, cause too much disruption, and the disrupted waves start distorting and canceling what would otherwise be a clean image waves.
What can't light act as particles when you want it too. Gerrr. :P
Actually I'm somewhat surprised at the (maybe exaggerated) softness even past f/8. The f/16 and f/22 stops I rarely use on any lens ... I have not yet had a lens which produces good images at those settings.
I don't see any in the F8 sample. I can barely notice a tad at f/16 - but hat's easily recovered in PP. At f/22 it's pretty bad tho.
I have a few lenses where it's pristine from f/2 al the way through to f/32 or f/22. So it's not impossible. If I recall, this Tessar was designed in the 50's even tho they were still manufactured up until recently (or maybe even still are ?). 70's and later designs are typically better.
Keep in mind that the anim is composed of unprocessed 100% crops tho. Nada... from RAW straight to dithered 256 color GIF frames. So according to HIS mathematics this means you have to sit 1.5 meters from the screen in order to not notice any of the low color dithering at typical LCD dot pitches.
Here's what the entire frame looks like processed and scaled to 16%:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Movies/f5.6_1030165.jpg
My M42 Tessar can be pretty sharp at f/2.8 - I think it's more related to focussingdistance than anything else. I think I've read in the ZF/ZE/ZM thread (or any of the other Zeiss related threads) that indeed lensperformance may be quite different between close-up or at infinity.
Yeah, I've read such things as well. It's probably true. I can't remember ever trying to test it tho. It makes sense - the way internal focus groups work. So I don't doubt it.
Edited on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Hi bifurcator,
Thanks, be looking forward to it!
The animation is fun to watch and illustrative. From f/16 you see the diffraction kicking in (if I am correct).
Yeah, that's right. The aperture blades get in the way, cause too much disruption, and the disrupted waves start distorting and canceling what would otherwise be a clean image waves.
What can't light act as particles when you want it too. Gerrr. :P
Actually I'm somewhat surprised at the (maybe exaggerated) softness even past f/8. The f/16 and f/22 stops I rarely use on any lens ... I have not yet had a lens which produces good images at those settings.
I don't see any in the F8 sample. I can barely notice a tad at f/16 - but hat's easily recovered in PP. At f/22 it's pretty bad tho.
I have a few lenses where it's pristine from f/2 al the way through to f/32 or f/22. So it's not impossible. If I recall, this Tessar was designed in the 50's even tho they were still manufactured up until recently (or maybe even still are ?). 70's and later designs are typically better.Keep in mind that the anim is composed of unprocessed 100% crops tho. Nada... from RAW straight to dithered 256 color GIF frames. So according to HIS mathematics this means you have to sit 1.5 meters from the screen in order to not notice any of the low color dithering at typical LCD dot pitches.
Here's what the entire frame looks like processed and scaled to 16%:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Movies/f5.6_1030165.jpg
My M42 Tessar can be pretty sharp at f/2.8 - I think it's more related to focussingdistance than anything else. I think I've read in the ZF/ZE/ZM thread (or any of the other Zeiss related threads) that indeed lensperformance may be quite different between close-up or at infinity.
Yeah, I've read such things as well. It's probably true. I can't remember ever trying to test it tho. It makes sense - the way internal focus groups work. So I don't doubt it.
Edited on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2010 at 06:37 AM
p.10 #7C/Y Zeiss Image Post
OK, Here ya go, hot off the press:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7998659988.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7567755955.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7987687890.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8598959576.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_4410400142.jpg
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:45 AM · View previous versions
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7998659988.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7567755955.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_7987687890.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8598959576.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_4410400142.jpg
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:45 AM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM
p.10 #8C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Distagon 2,8/28mm MM 81xx
I had 2 copies of AEJ and this MM is much much much better in terms of sharpness, 3d and vignietting. AEJ wasn`t better than my oly 28/2.8 until f/5.6(corners). MM is better wo than oly at any aperture...close focusing is way better than ae version. Love it!
And Planar 1,4/85
I had 2 copies of AEJ and this MM is much much much better in terms of sharpness, 3d and vignietting. AEJ wasn`t better than my oly 28/2.8 until f/5.6(corners). MM is better wo than oly at any aperture...close focusing is way better than ae version. Love it!
 |
||
| http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5301/img0872wq.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1627/img0831a.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1453/img0884t.jpg | ||
|
And Planar 1,4/85
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4786822751_c95e5823a4_b.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4787480215_f828e7c922_b.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4791135052_c6676332fb_b.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4790442661_f8c7bdb66d_b.jpg | ||
|
Jul 13, 2010 at 02:48 PM
p.10 #9C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Bifurcator! Thanks a lot for such a prompt service! Do you do childrens parties too?
The OOF highlights render really very nicely! Yummy. Now I have to rethink my "which tessar to get" strategy once more. (there's also the 12-blade chrome versions ... though I hardly see anyone posting images shot with those, which could mean something). WIkipedia places the (first) design of the tessar in 1902 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar) ... so it goes way back!
Well, as far as diffraction, light, waves, particles etc - I have a physics background so no stranger to those concepts
But when it comes to putting theory to practice you're never quite sure when certain physical circumstances trigger observable effects like this diffraction. (theory has it that even when you shoot wide open there's diffraction - only there's other reasons why you don't see it ).Oh ah the GIF frames were 1:1 taken from RAW ... well that's why I said "seems soft" - when you put up the processed & scaled image I didn't see no softness, great! At which aperture was that shot btw? Wide open?
thanks again bifurcator!
Piotr: very nices images! #4 is my fav of this series. wow.
cheers,
h.
Jul 13, 2010 at 03:28 PM
p.10 #10C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Piotr_P: I absolutely love what you've done with the 1,4/85 Planar (especially the 2nd in the series, very lush).
Here are some shots with my 50/1.7. I'm finding that this lens over the Canon allows for a nice processing latitude, bringing out tones and detail that my Canon 50/1.4 never allowed at larger apertures. Its relatively sharp wide open (as its known for being).
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4791484481_489b474147.jpg
Larger
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/4792117700_a5575922ab.jpg
Larger
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4791484325_a4e6089cb4.jpg
Larger
Here are some shots with my 50/1.7. I'm finding that this lens over the Canon allows for a nice processing latitude, bringing out tones and detail that my Canon 50/1.4 never allowed at larger apertures. Its relatively sharp wide open (as its known for being).
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4791484481_489b474147.jpg
Larger
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/4792117700_a5575922ab.jpg
Larger
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4791484325_a4e6089cb4.jpg
Larger
Jul 13, 2010 at 09:00 PM
p.10 #11C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Piotr_P wrote:
And Planar 1,4/85
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4786822751_c95e5823a4_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4787480215_f828e7c922_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4791135052_c6676332fb_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4790442661_f8c7bdb66d_b.jpg
Great photos!! were they all wide open?
I just received my Planar 85 1.4 MMJ on 5DII and it's not very sharp wide open
would that contribute to the adapter or just I have a soft copy?
Edited on Jul 14, 2010 at 05:13 PM · View previous versions
And Planar 1,4/85
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4786822751_c95e5823a4_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4787480215_f828e7c922_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4791135052_c6676332fb_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4790442661_f8c7bdb66d_b.jpg
Great photos!! were they all wide open?
I just received my Planar 85 1.4 MMJ on 5DII and it's not very sharp wide open
would that contribute to the adapter or just I have a soft copy?
Edited on Jul 14, 2010 at 05:13 PM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2010 at 09:31 PM
p.10 #12C/Y Zeiss Image Post
haavee wrote:
Bifurcator! Thanks a lot for such a prompt service! Do you do childrens parties too?
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
The OOF highlights render really very nicely! Yummy. Now I have to rethink my "which tessar to get" strategy once more. (there's also the 12-blade chrome versions ... though I hardly see anyone posting images shot with those, which could mean something). WIkipedia places the (first) design of the tessar in 1902 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar) ... so it goes way back!
Yeah, probably true. I think I remember reading that the 45mm 2.8 here was designed first in the 50's tho.
Oh ah the GIF frames were 1:1 taken from RAW ... well that's why I said "seems soft" - when you put up the processed & scaled image I didn't see no softness, great! At which aperture was that shot btw? Wide open?
No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference. I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway.
thanks again bifurcator!
Piotr: very nices images! #4 is my fav of this series. wow.
cheers,
h.
NP, you're welcome. Here's a few more from the same lens:
100% Crop (processed).
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:46 AM · View previous versions
Bifurcator! Thanks a lot for such a prompt service! Do you do childrens parties too?
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
The OOF highlights render really very nicely! Yummy. Now I have to rethink my "which tessar to get" strategy once more. (there's also the 12-blade chrome versions ... though I hardly see anyone posting images shot with those, which could mean something). WIkipedia places the (first) design of the tessar in 1902 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar) ... so it goes way back!
Yeah, probably true. I think I remember reading that the 45mm 2.8 here was designed first in the 50's tho.
Oh ah the GIF frames were 1:1 taken from RAW ... well that's why I said "seems soft" - when you put up the processed & scaled image I didn't see no softness, great! At which aperture was that shot btw? Wide open?
No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference.
I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway. thanks again bifurcator!
Piotr: very nices images! #4 is my fav of this series. wow.
cheers,
h.
NP, you're welcome. Here's a few more from the same lens:
100% Crop (processed).
Edited on Aug 15, 2010 at 04:46 AM · View previous versions
Jul 14, 2010 at 06:36 AM
p.10 #13C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Bifurcator wrote:
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
Oh okay. You're one of *those*. Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.
No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference. I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway.
Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8114224420.jpg
100% Crop (processed).
crikey. that's sharp. I have never gotten any of my lenses to produce something like that. not even close.
cheers,
h
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
Oh okay. You're one of *those*
. Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference.
I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway. Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8114224420.jpg
100% Crop (processed).
crikey. that's sharp. I have never gotten any of my lenses to produce something like that. not even close.
cheers,
h
Jul 14, 2010 at 01:27 PM
p.10 #14C/Y Zeiss Image Post
haavee wrote:
Oh okay. You're one of *those*. Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.
I don't think I'm classifiable in such simple terms.
Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
Well, you can think about it mathematically. At 12% scaling a 9 pixel think detail line becomes only one pixel wide. A 3 to 5 pixel flare halo disappears completely - especially in combination with a little sharpening prior to the scale operation. A 4 or 5 pixel detail line becomes sub-pixel micro-detail and textures of about the same granularity (5 or 6 pixel patterns) become micro-contrast detail. This depends somewhat on the scaling algorithm used but this is generally the case.
[url]http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8114224420.jpg[/url]
100% Crop (processed).
crikey. that's sharp. I have never gotten any of my lenses to produce something like that. not even close.
Yeah, it's pretty sharp. It's no slouch for sure.
Oh okay. You're one of *those*
. Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.I don't think I'm classifiable in such simple terms.
Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
Well, you can think about it mathematically. At 12% scaling a 9 pixel think detail line becomes only one pixel wide. A 3 to 5 pixel flare halo disappears completely - especially in combination with a little sharpening prior to the scale operation. A 4 or 5 pixel detail line becomes sub-pixel micro-detail and textures of about the same granularity (5 or 6 pixel patterns) become micro-contrast detail. This depends somewhat on the scaling algorithm used but this is generally the case.
[url]http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Zeiss_Tessar_45mm_f2.8_Pancake/content/bin/images/large/_8114224420.jpg[/url]
100% Crop (processed).
crikey. that's sharp. I have never gotten any of my lenses to produce something like that. not even close.
Yeah, it's pretty sharp. It's no slouch for sure.
Jul 14, 2010 at 04:07 PM
p.10 #15C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Very nice serie Piotr. I love the way you control the bokeh in your photos.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4793989685_017acec340_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4793989685_017acec340_o.jpg
Jul 14, 2010 at 04:11 PM
p.10 #16C/Y Zeiss Image Post
tonik23 wrote:
Piotr_P wrote:
And Planar 1,4/85
Great photos!! were they all wide open?
I just received my Planar 85 1.4 MMJ on 5DII and it's very sharp wide open
would that contribute to the adapter or just I have a soft copy?
I find with mine that I need to wait about half a second after adjusting the focus ring if I am sending it quickly to a new setting for the glass inside to catch up. There is no slop or hysteresis, but it is easy to overshoot focus just a hair because of this if i am too impatient. When I take it a bit slower, it is sharp as a tack wide open unless I goof. The lens is never at fault.
Jim
Piotr_P wrote:
And Planar 1,4/85
Great photos!! were they all wide open?
I just received my Planar 85 1.4 MMJ on 5DII and it's very sharp wide open
would that contribute to the adapter or just I have a soft copy?
I find with mine that I need to wait about half a second after adjusting the focus ring if I am sending it quickly to a new setting for the glass inside to catch up. There is no slop or hysteresis, but it is easy to overshoot focus just a hair because of this if i am too impatient. When I take it a bit slower, it is sharp as a tack wide open unless I goof. The lens is never at fault.
Jim
Jul 14, 2010 at 04:21 PM
p.10 #18C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Thanks man!
What have you been shooting lately anyway? I haven't seen anything from you in awhile.
What have you been shooting lately anyway? I haven't seen anything from you in awhile.
Jul 15, 2010 at 07:36 PM
p.10 #20C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Here's maybe a 220 degree pano done with a Contax 35 PC at f/11. I think full resolution is about 2/3 zoomed in or slightly more. I have to post the link to Gigapan, as you can't fully appreciate it unless you get near full resolution:
http://gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/0ee398892b5aed371d9d6ef1557d4a39/
BTW, it was focused on the nearby green column of the bridge in order to get nearby items somewhat in focus, so compromises were made there.
And one more, focused on nearest trees as I recall. It's about a 650 MB photo.
http://gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/4497668c4c62059dd1625dfcfb98ff18/
http://gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/0ee398892b5aed371d9d6ef1557d4a39/
BTW, it was focused on the nearby green column of the bridge in order to get nearby items somewhat in focus, so compromises were made there.
And one more, focused on nearest trees as I recall. It's about a 650 MB photo.
http://gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/4497668c4c62059dd1625dfcfb98ff18/
Jul 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM