Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why are only MF 16 bit?  (Read 17375 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7871


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 02:46:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd say that you have a good demo. In my view Bernard does have a point, but the price point of the D3X puts it near MFDB territory, and if you are willing to spend the money you may as well go for the real stuff.

A larger sensor will have better MTF for fine details and will also collect more photons.

Best regards
Erik

It's all I had at hand. As for the DR, it is above average in DR performance (according to DxO), and certainly one of the most popular cameras in use by professionals, so it's a pretty good indicator of why 35mm DSLRs have a particular reputation.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1704


« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2011, 03:37:44 PM »
ReplyReply

A larger sensor will have better MTF for fine details
Would you care to elaborate? Do you mean that the pixel count is higher or that MF lenses tends to have higher MTF cutoff (lp/ph)?

-h
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7871


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2011, 03:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Magnification will be higher for an MF system. So if an MF system uses an 80 mm lens and a DSLR a 50 mm lens to achieve the same field of view the image on the sensor will be 1.6 times larger, giving significantly higher MTF.

Best regards
Erik

Would you care to elaborate? Do you mean that the pixel count is higher or that MF lenses tends to have higher MTF cutoff (lp/ph)?

-h
Logged

ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2011, 04:52:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I just performed a small test. I took the same image with a Canon 5D II and a Leaf Aptus II 12 back (both at base ISO). I matched the histograms as close as I could, and deliberately underexposed. I also used an object with dark detail.

Then I imported both RAW files into C1 and pushed them both 2 stops. It's not just the noise performance which is better with the Leaf, but the colour is far superior:

(you will need to use 'view image' to see it at 100% or click on http://moskvamodels.com/images/canon_v_leaf.jpg )



Easy to explain what's going on here. The key thing is that Graham used "both at base ISO". Now, the 5DII at ISO 100 is one of the noisiest cameras you'll ever come across. Sensorgen finds it has a whopping 27.8 electrons of readout noise at ISO 100 - to put that in perspective, it's noisier than even "prehistoric" 35mm full-frame CCDs like the Dalsa ones in the good old Leaf Volare/Cantare of the late '90s!

Graham's Aptus II 12 has probably at best around 13 electrons readout noise - I say probably, because Dalsa never released a datasheet for their 80MP sensor. The nearest actual comparison I can find is the P65+, which has 17.6 electrons readnoise in Sensorgen. So if it's in this range, it's twice as good as the 5DII at base ISO. This is clear from the images too.

So here's the first thing: Graham was really comparing readout noise at base ISO, not DR.

Here's the second thing. Graham underexposed and pushed the files by 2 stops - effectively simulating ISO 400. With the Leaf, actually shooting at ISO 400 would yield the same S/N, since MF CCD readout noise doesn't change with ISO gain. But with the Canon, actually shooting at ISO 400 would vastly improve the results, since the readnoise drops to 8.6 electrons. Now it's well ahead of the Leaf! At ISO 800 and above, the Canon really pulls away further from the Leaf. And all the while, the Canon maintains a DR of 11 stops - both at ISO 100 and at ISO 800. How does it do this? Because the max signal collected happens to fall in direct proportion to the improvement in readnoise (then the readnoise improvement starts to level off). The Leaf, on the other hand, loses a stop of DR with every doubling of ISO; it's lost 3 stops of DR at ISO 800!

Conclusions?

1) What we all knew already: MFD systems are wonderful at base ISO; and fall increasingly behind in both noise and DR at any other ISO [unless pixel binning is employed].

2) People who have a 5DII alongside an MFD system primarily use the 5DII for its wonderful higher ISO performance (well I do anyway!)...and, well, movies.

Ray
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2438



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2011, 05:03:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the test.

I am not that surprised, the DR of the 5DII, and therefore its shadow noise, is notoriously not that good. Even the 18MP 7D does nearly as well although the pixels are much smaller:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/619|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/485|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/483|0/%28brand3%29/Canon

Cheers,
Bernard



While in Utah we shot both with Nikon D3X, and also AFi-ii 7 and 12.   The D3X was good, but its supposedly superior DR according to DXOmark didn't appear.  When I compared the same shot of some Indian Ruins both leaf backs could show more detail in the shadow areas seen through the windows of the ruins.  Not saying the nikon was bad because, really it was quit good, but it didn't have the advantage in terms of DR. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2011, 05:17:51 PM »
ReplyReply


I also made a point that I would expect cameras with > 14bit DR to excel at high ISO. I was always somewhat confused by the statement that MFDBs have large DR but don't perform well at high ISO, you may perhaps spread some light on the issue?


Hi Erik,

No problem. I think the best way to explain this is to build on my last post above. Let's take the 5DII as our "typical CMOS DSLR" in noise terms. It may have only a modest DR~11 stops at both ISO 100 and ISO 800, but they aren't the same 11 stops! If you map them to the eV range of the scene, at ISO 800 the 11 stops are shifted by +3 eV to lower light levels. This shifting continues by about another 0.5 eV if you raise the ISO further. That's a total scene range of 14.5 stops if you combine ISO 100 and ISO 1600 (and keep the same shutter speed). This explains why the low-light, high ISO performance is so good....it's not the absolute DR at any one ISO that matters; it's the faintest eV that the DR can touch.

Contrast that with a "typical CCD MFDB" like Graham's Leaf, which does indeed have a large DR at base ISO: 12 stops according to Leaf; 1 stop better than the Canon. Changing the ISO setting does not shift the Leaf's DR to lower eVs, since the readnoise is already pretty much at its "floor" level at base ISO. So it has a (14.5 - 12 =) 2.5 eV/stops disadvantage with respect to the Canon, in the "high ISO, low light" regime.

Ray

Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1704


« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2011, 05:29:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I fail to see why scaling everything up by itself must necessarily give higher MTF (as in lp/ph). Are you assuming diffraction limiting or lense precision limiting? Are you assuming that building a 25x25x25cm lense to resolve with good contrast at 5 micron scales is as easy as building a 2.5x2.5x2.5cm lense to resolve with good contrast at 5 micron scales?

I see why it would be so often or even usually in practice, but not why it must be a fundamental rule.

-h
Hi,

Magnification will be higher for an MF system. So if an MF system uses an 80 mm lens and a DSLR a 50 mm lens to achieve the same field of view the image on the sensor will be 1.6 times larger, giving significantly higher MTF.

Best regards
Erik

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7871


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2011, 11:48:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Update: I think Ray answered this already in another posting. I don't remove my posting as I think that the figures are quite nice.


Hi Ray,


Thanks for explaining. When I look at DR on DxO I can see that Canons and cameras having Sony's new CMOS sensors behave very differently regarding DR. I enclose three figures for Nikon D3X, Nikon D3S and Canon 5DII.

In my view the Nikon D3X is very different from the other two. I got the impression that Sony Alpha 77, Pentax K5 and other new Sony based cameras are pretty similar to the D3X curve in shape.

The impression I have is that the readout noise on Canon is poor and is helped by pre amps. So DR is less than on say Nikon D3X at low ISO, but by increasing pre amplification it can be maintained at the same, relatively low, level up to say 800 ISO.

The Nikon D3X still performs well at decently high ISOs according to what I have seen and read.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Erik,

No problem. I think the best way to explain this is to build on my last post above. Let's take the 5DII as our "typical CMOS DSLR" in noise terms. It may have only a modest DR~11 stops at both ISO 100 and ISO 800, but they aren't the same 11 stops! If you map them to the eV range of the scene, at ISO 800 the 11 stops are shifted by +3 eV to lower light levels. This shifting continues by about another 0.5 eV if you raise the ISO further. That's a total scene range of 14.5 stops if you combine ISO 100 and ISO 1600 (and keep the same shutter speed). This explains why the low-light, high ISO performance is so good....it's not the absolute DR at any one ISO that matters; it's the faintest eV that the DR can touch.

Contrast that with a "typical CCD MFDB" like Graham's Leaf, which does indeed have a large DR at base ISO: 12 stops according to Leaf; 1 stop better than the Canon. Changing the ISO setting does not shift the Leaf's DR to lower eVs, since the readnoise is already pretty much at its "floor" level at base ISO. So it has a (14.5 - 12 =) 2.5 eV/stops disadvantage with respect to the Canon, in the "high ISO, low light" regime.

Ray


« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 12:23:02 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7871


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2011, 12:18:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

Thanks for explaining this. Can you explain Eric Hiss's experience, too? He was comparing what I think is an older Aptus with his Nikon D3X shooting high contrast stuff, and the MF cameras always came out on top.

Now, a larger sensor always collects more photons at "ETTR" based exposure as it has a larger surface, so shot noise will be less. An older sensor also has larger pixels which helps with DR. Essentially I would expect an older back to have similar DR (normalized to size) to a D3X, as surface is 3-4 times larger on the MF but readout noise is something like four times less on the D3X. Or am I comparing apples and oranges?

I added two figures from DxOmark. First one shows DR at actual pixels:

- Phase One IQ 180 seems to use 12 bits
- Canon 5DII seems to use 11 bits
- Nikon D3X seems to use 13 bits

The second one show the same data normalized for a given size of print:

- Phase and Nikon D3X seem to have the same DR, but Nikon achieves that at higher ISO
- Canon 5DII is almost two stops behind

I also looked at "tonal range" where I thought that the Phase would excel, but it does only do that at minimum ISO. I'm a bit perplexed by this.

Also, I would think that both lens flare and MTF may play a role, at least in some cases, but I think that issue needs more elaboration.

Best regards
Erik

Easy to explain what's going on here. The key thing is that Graham used "both at base ISO". Now, the 5DII at ISO 100 is one of the noisiest cameras you'll ever come across. Sensorgen finds it has a whopping 27.8 electrons of readout noise at ISO 100 - to put that in perspective, it's noisier than even "prehistoric" 35mm full-frame CCDs like the Dalsa ones in the good old Leaf Volare/Cantare of the late '90s!

Graham's Aptus II 12 has probably at best around 13 electrons readout noise - I say probably, because Dalsa never released a datasheet for their 80MP sensor. The nearest actual comparison I can find is the P65+, which has 17.6 electrons readnoise in Sensorgen. So if it's in this range, it's twice as good as the 5DII at base ISO. This is clear from the images too.

So here's the first thing: Graham was really comparing readout noise at base ISO, not DR.

Here's the second thing. Graham underexposed and pushed the files by 2 stops - effectively simulating ISO 400. With the Leaf, actually shooting at ISO 400 would yield the same S/N, since MF CCD readout noise doesn't change with ISO gain. But with the Canon, actually shooting at ISO 400 would vastly improve the results, since the readnoise drops to 8.6 electrons. Now it's well ahead of the Leaf! At ISO 800 and above, the Canon really pulls away further from the Leaf. And all the while, the Canon maintains a DR of 11 stops - both at ISO 100 and at ISO 800. How does it do this? Because the max signal collected happens to fall in direct proportion to the improvement in readnoise (then the readnoise improvement starts to level off). The Leaf, on the other hand, loses a stop of DR with every doubling of ISO; it's lost 3 stops of DR at ISO 800!

Conclusions?

1) What we all knew already: MFD systems are wonderful at base ISO; and fall increasingly behind in both noise and DR at any other ISO [unless pixel binning is employed].

2) People who have a 5DII alongside an MFD system primarily use the 5DII for its wonderful higher ISO performance (well I do anyway!)...and, well, movies.

Ray
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 12:33:33 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2438



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2011, 01:16:25 AM »
ReplyReply

In the shots of the ruins that I posted about earlier, one could raise the shadows by either changing exposure values, using the shadow tool, or the curves tool.  In all cases when the shadows were lifted on the D3X shot they came up fairly clean - meaning if noise was your determinant for DR, you'd think this camera set up was great since it was clean -but there was just mostly black in the window areas that got lighter as they were pulled up.  The Aptus files, on the other hand, contained some detail that came out of the blacks when you lifted the shadows.  Clearly the Leaf backs captured more range.   Overall I was impressed by the D3X files because I think they are better than my 5D2 files (but I have no direct comparison).    I suppose the extra pixels give the Leaf the advantage but I'm not sure how much that really comes into play because it wasn't like the extra pixels just reduced the noise because in this case one had detail in the shadows and the other just didn't record that range at all. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2011, 01:52:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's the second thing. Graham underexposed and pushed the files by 2 stops - effectively simulating ISO 400. With the Leaf, actually shooting at ISO 400 would yield the same S/N, since MF CCD readout noise doesn't change with ISO gain. But with the Canon, actually shooting at ISO 400 would vastly improve the results, since the readnoise drops to 8.6 electrons. Now it's well ahead of the Leaf!

Ok, but that's not the point. The original point was "what then contributes to making MF files so much more robust to post processing". So I demonstrated the difference between 2 cameras. It was about pushing shadows, not shooting at ISO 400.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 02:05:27 AM by Graham Mitchell » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2011, 05:11:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Graham -

If you have a chance, could you shoot the same scene at ISO 400, to see what shows up?
Logged

Geoff
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2011, 07:49:53 AM »
ReplyReply

In the shots of the ruins that I posted about earlier, one could raise the shadows by either changing exposure values, using the shadow tool, or the curves tool.  In all cases when the shadows were lifted on the D3X shot they came up fairly clean - meaning if noise was your determinant for DR, you'd think this camera set up was great since it was clean -but there was just mostly black in the window areas that got lighter as they were pulled up.  The Aptus files, on the other hand, contained some detail that came out of the blacks when you lifted the shadows.  Clearly the Leaf backs captured more range.   Overall I was impressed by the D3X files because I think they are better than my 5D2 files (but I have no direct comparison).    I suppose the extra pixels give the Leaf the advantage but I'm not sure how much that really comes into play because it wasn't like the extra pixels just reduced the noise because in this case one had detail in the shadows and the other just didn't record that range at all. 



Hi Eric,

Your comment - "but there was just mostly black in the window areas that got lighter as they were pulled up. The Aptus files, on the other hand, contained some detail that came out of the blacks when you lifted the shadows....and the other just didn't record that range at all " - sounds awfully like the Nikon had clipped up to half of those pixels to zero intensity. Nikon does apply an overly harsh zero offset correction to its RAW files, which does not endear their firmware to us.

Ray
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2011, 08:19:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Update: I think Ray answered this already in another posting. I don't remove my posting as I think that the figures are quite nice.


Hi Ray,


Thanks for explaining. When I look at DR on DxO I can see that Canons and cameras having Sony's new CMOS sensors behave very differently regarding DR. I enclose three figures for Nikon D3X, Nikon D3S and Canon 5DII.

In my view the Nikon D3X is very different from the other two. I got the impression that Sony Alpha 77, Pentax K5 and other new Sony based cameras are pretty similar to the D3X curve in shape.

The impression I have is that the readout noise on Canon is poor and is helped by pre amps. So DR is less than on say Nikon D3X at low ISO, but by increasing pre amplification it can be maintained at the same, relatively low, level up to say 800 ISO.

The Nikon D3X still performs well at decently high ISOs according to what I have seen and read.

Best regards
Erik



Hi Erik,

I agree with your points. Ideally, the A/D converter would not be a limiting/contributing factor to noise at all; the sort of curves you show from DxOmark would then be perfectly linear, and would show a 1 stop fall in DR with every 1 stop increase in ISO, starting from a very high base-ISO DR. The latest Nikons, Pentaxes and Sonys are approaching that condition; let's see what Canon has come up with in the 1DX when it's tested.

The MFD systems are already "ideal" like this - but the big problem with them is that their sensor readnoise remains stubbornly high, so their DR curves/lines are displaced 2 or even 3  stops to the left (to lower ISO). Your 1st and 2nd plots of the post with 3 plots, comparing the D3X to the IQ180, illustrate this perfectly. The big step to the right that the IQ180 line makes, when Sensor+ is switched on, is another perfect illustration of what you get when you (effectively) lower sensor readnoise.

Ray
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2438



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2011, 11:36:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

Your comment - "but there was just mostly black in the window areas that got lighter as they were pulled up. The Aptus files, on the other hand, contained some detail that came out of the blacks when you lifted the shadows....and the other just didn't record that range at all " - sounds awfully like the Nikon had clipped up to half of those pixels to zero intensity. Nikon does apply an overly harsh zero offset correction to its RAW files, which does not endear their firmware to us.

Ray

Ray,
That could be because the blacks when lifted were very clean.  I don't own a D3X and am mostly unfamiliar with it, so thanks for pointing that out.   I also note that I used C1 for my comparison so its possible that other RAW converters would show a different result. 
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7871


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2011, 02:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric,

Thanks very much for sharing information. Do you happen to know if the D3X was in 12-bit or 14-bit mode? It has two modes, one fast (like 5 FPS) and one slower (2-3 FPS).

Best regards
Erik

Ray,
That could be because the blacks when lifted were very clean.  I don't own a D3X and am mostly unfamiliar with it, so thanks for pointing that out.   I also note that I used C1 for my comparison so its possible that other RAW converters would show a different result. 
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1143



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2011, 04:57:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Been following this thread quietly and right now all I can say is that I'm glad that photography is made out of photos and not out of graphs...

This is not all just about shadow noise or shadow detail...a good high bit-depth file will also provide finer, smoother gradations across the range especially in bright tones where a lower bit-depth file will tend to either block them or show bands/ steps.

If a sensor is capable of capturing 16 bits of information (or close to that) at optimal (base or whatever) iso then it makes perfect sense (if possible and if hardware + software allow it) to use a 16 bit pipeline from capture to output...

If your output is a 16-bit TIFF that goes into Photoshope for retouching & adjustments and that is then gets squashed into a much lower bit-depth print, then you are better off with a high bit-depth original...

But I guess you all know that already?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 03:19:49 AM by yaya » Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1704


« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2011, 02:32:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Been following this thread quietly and right now all I can say is that I'm glad that photography is made out of photos and not out of graphs...

This is not all just about shadow noise or shadow detail...a good high bit-depth file will also provide finer, smoother gradations across the range especially in bright tones where a lower bit-depth file will tend to either block them or show bands/ steps.
If 16 bits matter, then one would hope that it would be possible to make relevant side-by-sides showing its benefits, and/or to understand why. Graphs and formulas have been used to teach engineering and (one would hope) to build Leaf & Mamiya cameras, why is it problematic to use graphs to discuss merits of cameras?

Simply believing sales people or random internet people at face value that may have have done unfair side-by-sides under god knows what conditions is not my thing. It may well be that a 16-bit MF camera is "better" than a 14-bit DSLR and that the bit-depth have nothing to do with it. It is still possible that professional photographers/gurus/product managers will (possibly erroneously) attribute the quality to 16 vs 14 bits. People are like that, we try to make sense out of what little we can observe and what we think that we know, even if this means "seeing" jesus in a burned frying pan . Graphs tends to counteract that human flaw.

-h
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 02:50:17 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1143



WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2011, 03:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Simply believing sales people or random internet people at face value that may have have done unfair side-by-sides under god knows what conditions is not my thing.
-h

I've met Graham and he did not strike me as a "random internet people"....I haven't met Eric in person but he doesn't strike me as such either...

I think neither of them has a reason to do unfair tests and I think both know how to test camera by taking some real photos and observing the results

But as I always say, don't believe internet blurb...do your own tests and draw your own conclusions!
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2011, 04:46:28 AM »
ReplyReply



But as I always say, don't believe internet blurb...do your own tests and draw your own conclusions!

This is the one true statement when you talk about buying any camera . . . for any purpose.

Test it, but test it in exactly the style your going to work, not in some dealer's shop, or for that matter not with a dealer within 2 miles of the shoot.

Personally, I'd test it in the way I work with my staff in the specific genre I wish to work, I would do it under the pressure of time, budget and talent time and I would do it where I could exactly compare it to what I was using at the moment to be sure it was worth the money to add another camera.

These images were shot with multiple cameras from a 4k RED, to a 30mp digital back, with the final image a 6mp Kodak DCS 760.



Some of the images (the RED) I purposely added noise and blew the edges in post to give a historic look, the middle image I purposely wanted a smooth detailed image and the third with the dcs 760, I worked in post to blow the highlights and some other effects to give the desired look.

All the cameras were used because at the time they worked for what I wanted to do and they worked in "my" real world.

I don't know, or care if they have 12 bits or 14 bits, a high or low noise floor . . .I just care what I end up with and if the final looked worked for the purpose.

It's interesting because I know little of the fine art world, but this week, we had an image sell in auction in Paris.

It was the second highest price image sold and the print was approx 45" in length and shot with a 5d2.



I do know I could not have shot this hallway image with my medium format backs because I used a 575 watt HMI and I doubt seriously if my medium format backs would gone to a high enough iso, to catch this image as I did.

This shouldn't mean anything to anyone else any more than it means for the pixel crowd who is in constant search for ultimate image quality (whatever that is).

But once again, that means nothing to anyone except me and the person that bought this print.

IMO

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

Ad
Ad
Ad