Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad H3D-39 not perfect ?  (Read 19960 times)
dennismv
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: April 02, 2008, 07:35:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I came across this review:  http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/

In short (jumping to conclusion of the article), image quality per pixel does not deliver perfection.  In particular, colored specs and lack of "pop" (liveness) to the image.

Can anyone confirm if HD3II has same issues ?
Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2008, 07:48:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I came across this review:  http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/

In short (jumping to conclusion of the article), image quality per pixel does not deliver perfection.  In particular, colored specs and lack of "pop" (liveness) to the image.

Can anyone confirm if HD3II has same issues ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lloyd had the camera for a whole two hours.

Nick-T
Logged

pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2008, 08:10:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lloyd had the camera for a whole two hours.

Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lloyd seemed to have an affection for the 503CW and I think it showed in his review (nothing wrong with that).

But he clearly didn't have a grasp on what he was dealing with. Also this review is on the original H3D, not the current H3DII. He is correct on 2 aspects - the small LCD screen and the rainbow affect from on-point speculars. (Both dramatically improved with the H3DII).

His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.

This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).

That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.

In addition to Lloyd's inaccurate review, I've also seen this with the January/February edition of Photo techniques, where Mark Dubovey (possible misspell, sorry) compared the Canon 1DS-MKII, the H3DII-39, the P45+ on H2 and the P45+ on Linhof with Rodenstock Digital Lenses. His conclusion was that the P45+ on H2 dusted the H3D-39 in dynamic range and sharpness and this is completely inaccurate. He even stated in the review that he left all software settings at "0" (defaults) which naturally would result in the P45+ image appearing much better than the H3DII-39 image because of those defaults. While his review was well written, I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.

Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.

Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2008, 09:32:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve,

Well explained, and I can confirm what you are mentioning, that Sinar has absolutely the same approach concerning the capture files: let the choice and all options to the users and not or very little applying any default setting (like sharpening, contrast/tonal curve).

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.

This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).

That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.

.....

... I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.

Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective.

Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:32:41 PM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2008, 09:33:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that there's a consensus that all the backs are now converging to equivalent (good) quality, although a Steve points out the workflows are very different.

I don't think this equivalence is true for the lenses though - the look is still different from brand to brand. And the MF crowd are probably capable of seeing the difference. As for the bodies ...

Edmund

Quote
Lloyd seemed to have an affection for the 503CW and I think it showed in his review (nothing wrong with that).

But he clearly didn't have a grasp on what he was dealing with. Also this review is on the original H3D, not the current H3DII. He is correct on 2 aspects - the small LCD screen and the rainbow affect from on-point speculars. (Both dramatically improved with the H3DII).

His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.

This is one issue that comes up frequently with reviewers of Hasselblad products. Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).

That's where not knowing the software comes into play. It's very simple to create as punchy or as sharp an image as you like and have that be applied upon import or capture automatically with either Flexcolor or Phocus.

In addition to Lloyd's inaccurate review, I've also seen this with the January/February edition of Photo techniques, where Mark Dubovey (possible misspell, sorry) compared the Canon 1DS-MKII, the H3DII-39, the P45+ on H2 and the P45+ on Linhof with Rodenstock Digital Lenses. His conclusion was that the P45+ on H2 dusted the H3D-39 in dynamic range and sharpness and this is completely inaccurate. He even stated in the review that he left all software settings at "0" (defaults) which naturally would result in the P45+ image appearing much better than the H3DII-39 image because of those defaults. While his review was well written, I believe choosing to ignore how each of the individual software programs handle image quality produced a faulty result.

Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.

Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:35:38 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
dennismv
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2008, 02:50:04 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks much.

I suppose 2 hours is indeed not enough time to figure all the ins and outs.  Also, I was not aware of the different philosophies.  I suppose when I get one (Hasselblad) I'll need to spend some quality time with it.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 02:50:22 AM by dennismv » Logged
jecxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2008, 03:22:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thanks much.

I suppose 2 hours is indeed not enough time to figure all the ins and outs. Also, I was not aware of the different philosophies. I suppose when I get one (Hasselblad) I'll need to spend some quality time with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just a few quotes so people who don't have time can see that this is an article by a man who really likes the 503CWD and is probably frustrated with the H and nothing more:

"I dont think Id ever quite get used to the H3D form factor." - yes, it's different, so is the new Volvo when you compare it with the box Volvo from 1979!

"...I found this [H3D] harder to work with than the viewfinder of the 503CWD..." - spend more than 2 hours with it.

"...feel as easy as the 503CWD viewfinder." - yes, by the 4th hour it'll be second nature.

"I simply would not trust this camera to take optimal exposures..." - because you don't know how to use it!

"Is the H3D ready for prime time, or is it a science fair project? I expect zero problems with a Hasselblad, especially for US$30K." - argh, sometimes I agree!

I won't quote more, but clearly, this is not a proper review, it's a comparison of an older model Hassy with a newer one, and clearly biased towards the older, and more comfortable (for the reviewer), model.

It's like reading one of Michael's reviews, you know there's an underlying bias or anger or frustration with the brand.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 03:54:04 AM by jecxz » Logged

jecxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2008, 03:26:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a very accurate statement. I've been working with the H3DII39 for several months now and the above is very true. I'm just not sure how a reviewer gets around this fact when he/she has perhaps an hour with a camera.
Logged

godtfred
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2008, 03:59:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... Unlike Leaf and (particularly) Phase One and similarly to Sinar, Hasselblad's software has a very hands-off approach to raw images upon capture/import. There is very little adjustment being automatically applied, and the images have a slightly linear look and can even appear soft without applying sharpening (because there's no sharpening being applied to begin with).

Hasselblad's approach is philosophically different from the approach of Phase One - they are not pushing your image in any particular direction. Rather they are allowing you to customize the image to your liking and starting that from a raw perspective. Hasselblad users are aware of this, but reviewers often are unaware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can only verify this with my own experience, having worked with several H3D bodies and flexcolor over the last couple of years, and now on a P45+ with H2 body. For those who wish to have "ultimate" control over their image, the flexcolor approachis is the way to go IMHO.

Coming from Flexcolor to C1 was not easy, and if you want to "zero" an image in C1 to achieve the "neutral" starting point you get in Flexcolor, the results are somewhat inferior IMO.

C1 is on the other hand much better in "out of the box" color and rendition, and handling my canon files as well is a huge bonus!

The difference in approach may well be a reason to chose one over the other, as software skills and the wish to learn them may vary. The software side of MFDB's have been pointed out endlessly on this forum, and the importance of this is as relevant today as it was yesterday and the year before that...
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 04:00:23 AM by godtfred » Logged

Axel Bauer
godtfred.com
H2|M679CS|P45+
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2364


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2008, 04:26:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Since I chose to finalize my images in PS Hasselblad is currently my preferred choice.

If you want to you can give any direction to any review. Maybe you should read reviews more like personal opinions given within the capability scope of the reviewer and nothing more.

I know I can get equally good results from Leaf, I am sure I can get it from P1 & Sinar as well.

As far as the ergomics for the H goes, I prefer the handling of my D300  I hate the mirror slap of the H, etc..

I am still searching for the perfect camera but I am pretty sure I will never find it since the goal posts vary per type of photography.
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2008, 05:14:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Steve Hendrix wrote-
Quote
His other issues (flat, non-punchy images, color artifacts) could easily be enhanced/eliminated if he knew what he was doing with the software.

Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.

Justin.
Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2008, 05:40:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's difficult to imagine you have ever taken a digital photo after the above statement. So you're happy with a group of people - a group you may never meet - deciding how your image will look? You want all your images to look the same way? Sorry if that's aggressive but it really is an incredible statement.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2008, 05:41:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve Hendrix wrote-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.

Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If one chooses an "open" brand one can just swap software - Photoshop seems to be kludgy but usable.

Hardware is different, I'm not sure if one can ever get used to a viewfinder one dislikes.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 05:43:05 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2008, 06:02:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's difficult to imagine you have ever taken a digital photo after the above statement. So you're happy with a group of people - a group you may never meet - deciding how your image will look? You want all your images to look the same way? Sorry if that's aggressive but it really is an incredible statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Stuart,

 Be nice !

 Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.

 There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.


Edmund
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 06:07:15 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
jillsw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2008, 06:49:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Stuart,

 Be nice !

 Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.

 There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I quite agree.  Having spent 18 months using computer software/printer technology to try to eradicate yellow tints from images taken with a Hasselblad CFV back, I finally gave up.  Hasselblad refunded the total amount paid for the back and I am now using a Phase One P45 back.  I have looked at the range of Hasselblad's digital products and they all have a yellow tint, which is most obvious in landscape photograph.  Hasselblad have a serious problem here, which they have at last acknowledged.
Logged
Peter Bur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2008, 07:03:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve Hendrix wrote-
Having spent a very tidy sum upon a camera should it really be necessary to mess about on the PC to produce a startling image? It's time we stopped making excuses for products which are less than their manufacturers claim or explicitly imply.

Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I use my H3D 39 11 every day & love the flat neutral non-punchy images that it delivers thus allowing me to enhance to my hearts content in Flexcolor & PS.

Peter.http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon1.gif
Logged

Peter Bur
My Website www.peterbur.co.uk
Conner999
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2008, 07:34:49 AM »
ReplyReply

The comments above are accurate - re: knowing the bodies, default approach to the image 'negative', spending more than two hrs with them etc.

That being said, bear in mind:
--------
1. LLoyds site is not a haven for MF users.
2. Lloyds does do exceptional work reviewing, in real life (not just test chart work) 135 gear of many varieties
3. He doesn't pull punches, but he also doesn't shy away from changing his mind upon further use of an item - and doesn't make excuses for having made a rush to judgement or an error.

4. He did what any 135 user would do that was even vaguely interested in a MF system. Went in, was able to borrow two very different snack-bracket systems for a couple of hrs each, shot with them and notes his PERSONAL likes, dislikes and initial impressions.  It was by far a real test and was never put forth as such. It was a simple, "Hey, I tried something different and FYI - here are my thoughts"

As for anyone making the go/no go purchase (or even should I test) decision on a $30K+ MF kit based on 1 users 2 hr walk-around-the-area test drive ......  

4a This was also Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad, not someone with a Canon bias pulling a tantrum (how much of that @#$ do we see every day?) against Nikon or vise versa. " Based on my quick use, I liked the cheaper Hasselblad kit over the more costly one..." The problem here is...?  If I sold H,  I'd rather have a new owner of a CWD I could maybe upgrade to a H3DII later than no H owner at all.
For every 1  person reading the article who might now go into a shop biased against the H3D, there is also a person heading in expecting to LOVE the CWD.  In short, there is someone going into a Hasselblad dealer. The rest is up to the sales staff.

5. I find, like I assume many do, that I either take to a new camera, car, etc., very quickly. He just didn't take to the H3 vs the CWD and told us why. Such is life.

6. IQ aside, there is also an immediate unconscious comparison  taking place the moment anyone would put hands-on the kits in question: 'what does $20,000+ extra get you?". The question would be no different than if Jane Doe were trying a Canon 20D vs 1Ds3.

For most people (again IQ aside) laying hands on two cameras where #1 costs 3x that of #2, the more expensive unit is expected to knock YOUR personal socks off in terms of handling, viewfinder, AF (if present), ergonomics, etc.  I mean, you are paying some of that premium for those features are you not?  

If that 'wow momma!' moment doesn't hit YOU ASAP, the next sub-conscious bias will be:  "... well the IQ had better not only be $30K good, but $30K+ the ergo/handling quirks I don't like good...".  If that fails to make itself immediately apparent ....

7. The vendor, knowing the systems, should have explained what to expect in the differences in how the two units delivered.  I get the impression they just handed him the two systems with a quick 'how to' and 'let him go play with them'. That's the kind of salesmanship that bites you in the $$$. Any work after the fact is now up-hill battle to overcome 'gut feel' biases you could have avoided. With Lloyd being a web reviewer, they should have been doubly diligent.

8. I'd rather see Lloyd published what he did than the usual unmitigated BS we see 90% of the time elsewhere:  "Both systems were just soooo perfect.  I mean, jeepers, it's like buying a Lexus vs. a Bentley, how could you go wrong.  It depends on how you want to work, the format you want,  dribble, dribble, bow, scrape, genuflect...."
 
In short, take the article for what it was -- and what it was presented as and be thankful you've got it at all.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 07:55:45 AM by Conner999 » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2008, 08:21:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Stuart,

 Be nice !

 Some photographers would like to get good color out of the box, just like in the film days.

 There should be an aftermarket for such "film looks", but the camera software guys are not really cooperating.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, Edmund, sorry. And sorry Justin. Did seem a bit heavy. But I'm still surprised in these digital days if anyone takes a shot and doesn't try even a little experimentation. Maybe it was the phrase "startling image" that got me excited. The idea that a camera can produce such a thing feels alien. IMHO the camera and software should be as neutral as possible but allow the user to do a lot of experimenting to get the final chosen image.

Which is what I should have said instead of being so belligerent. Sorry again.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2008, 08:48:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The comments above are accurate - re: knowing the bodies, default approach to the image 'negative', spending more than two hrs with them etc.

That being said, bear in mind: ------

1. LLoyds site is not a haven for MF users...., etc

In short, take the article for what it was -- and what it was presented as and be thankful you've got it at all.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I don't blame Lloyd  - he's not paid for reviewing that I know of. But regardless of a reviewers intentions, reviews of a product that paint either an inaccurate or incomplete picture do not help end users determine if that product is right for them to spend $20,000 - $30,000 on. And when I see those reviews, I feel compelled to correct them because anyone who would consider that product may not consider it  for all the wrong reasons after reading that review.

These are very important purchases for many reasons, the high cost involved, the nature in which it will be used, etc. "Winging it" with regard to how much you know about a product before spending $30,000 is not a great way to spend your money, and reviews can sometimes produce the same result if they're inaccurate or incomplete, as most are.

That said, reviewing a product is very difficult, especially when you get a limited amount of time with it (and limited involvement from the manufacturer). I like reviews. I'd like to see more of them. It's more the fault of the manufacturer than the reviewer for an inaccurate review. Sometimes it's not practical, but I would send a manufacturers representative to spend the time with the reviewer while they review the product to help produce an accurate review. Even a positive review can have inaccurate information in it that may erroneously expose the one thing that is a deal breaker for someone, when it actually is not a deal breaker. And so they buy their (in reality) 2nd choice because of an error.

So, it's not about shooting the messenger, just providing the correct information that the messenger failed to convey so that buyers considering the reviewed product can make an informed decision.


Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2008, 09:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Stewart

Apology not accepted because it really isn't necessary, although appreciated.   There is nothing like a good robust debate just so long as we don't start swearing at each other.

Having watched the march of digital over the past few years I am still thunderstruck as to how photography as a whole threw its arms out to embrace the technology without any serious questions being asked of its workability, quality or desirability. We need look no further than the question of dynamic range to illustrate just how blind we have been to the vices of the medium. We are now told that it's almost as good as colour neg film. Ehh....!! So why the hell have we been putting up with something so much less over the past decade? Mainly because we have been 'sold to' with a ferocity that was completely unknown to us before. Well that and the big 'C', convenience.

Digital has been one large marketing exercise as far he manufacturers are concerned. Look at the position of Canon now, is their exalted status due the quality of the product or simply that they had the best sales team? Nikon who were always recognised as having the better kit have been left behind and as for the likes of Pentax and Olympus their demise is but a sorry tale. I have one 35mm camera, a Pentax ESII from the seventies, I can still rely on it to produce a better picture than my Canon 30D from last year.

Hasselblad are not immune to this need for the hard sell and letting the customer do the development work. However, the fact that they are willing to refund the money 18 months later is a real feather in their cap. Try that with any dSLR maker and you'll soon be told where to park your b*m.  As an aside I am greatly amused by those eagerly awaiting a semi pro Sony mode. Let's get this straight, Sony are only there to sell an experience to the masses, not pander to the professional photographer. The flagship model will be manufactured for the sole purpose of convincing the less enlightened that Sony can cut it with the best, whether it's true or not.

Basically I am fed up with this attitude of the marketing men and being treated as just a knuckle dragging consuming unit, which goes to explain the frustration expressed in my posting.

BTW. There is only one photo on www.justinseye.com that is taken with film. I'll let you try and work out which, and if you think that this is a cynical attempt to up my Google ranking then, err.. you're right.  

Justin.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad