Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 22932 times)
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2013, 10:25:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for speaking for ALL users

I thought that speaking for ALL was your function :-)

Seriously, you are correct, I should have made it clearer that it being a non-issue was my opinion.  I would have thought that was understood...but I guess not by ALL.

John
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2013, 10:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

While image format changes are rare, locations of essential metadata do often change.  For example, the location of the white balance parameters set by the camera (so if you're shooting auto WB in the camera this camera-chosen WB setting is correctly preserved when initially loading the image in the raw converter) changes on some cameras from model to model.  There are other essential metadata like focus distance (for doing lens corrections) which can also change from model to model, within a given vendor's product line. 

While these issues are relatively minor individually, they add up when you consider the large number of raw-capable cameras on the market (we add about 100 a year).  Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.

Eric, I hope you understand how much I respect you and what you have brought to ACR/LR.  I feel for the problems and effort the camera to camera changes cause you.

Do you think that the camera manufacturers make these changes deliberately...to cause effort on the part of 3rd party RAW converters?  Do you think it is just sloppy coding?

I would expect that these changes also cause them to have to make changes to their "proprietary" RAW conversion software.  This must cost them time and effort to do....even if they know that there are differences in the RAW data.

I only have a suspicion, which maybe you know the answer.  Sloppy, changed code is rarely efficient and cost effective.  So what are the reasons that they allow changes camera to camera?  Do they get efficiencies in code creation?  Do they get better in-camera processing?  Tighter code?  One must suspect a reason....all the manufacturers cannot be just totally out of control, can they?

John
Logged

John
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2013, 11:09:35 PM »
ReplyReply

One must suspect a reason....all the manufacturers cannot be just totally out of control, can they?

That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format. The easiest way for them seems to take the existing file format and modify the tags and fields they need to to have their software support the file.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2013, 12:35:08 AM »
ReplyReply

My point was that if LR is to be updated this regularly then we can expect support per version in the shape of being able to use new cameras to be what? a year or so? That is short compared to the rest of the industry. Yes there is an annoying work around but as no pro I know would regard it as a solution for a workflow I'm going to ignore it. If you use LR then whether or not you need a few relatively minor tools that seem to justify an full version upgrade, if you want to keep current with modern cameras you will need to pay the upgrade far more often from now on.
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2013, 03:30:26 AM »
ReplyReply

 Hopefully they can slip in HDR or pano stitching in the production version.  Smiley
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2651


« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2013, 06:39:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hopefully not. Shudder to think about the bloat and possible speed issues. Undecided
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2013, 10:56:48 AM »
ReplyReply

That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format.

not true... new camera does not mean new format... means new content/new data in the same old format most of the time... that is very clear from dcraw or Adobe DNG SDK source code.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

well, well... that is the only story from 2005 that you can come up with ? how many undisclosed (unless you peek into a code) changes (or bug fixes) in what Adobe saves to converted DNG were made by Adobe since that time... speaking about archival format  Roll Eyes

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...

if manufacturer will agree to describe what they are writing and DNG itself is not a panacea, because it allows undocumented data to be written there... and you if argue that DNG has enough documented fields for a raw converter to operate then public knowledge (dcraw, Adobe DNG SDK, etc) is enough for a raw converter to operate on a proprietary raw format... that simple.

DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

true, and then if they want to make some changes they 'd need to seek a permission from Adobe (that takes time and that might mean disclose something to competition too - because Adobe must update about DNG spec changes other companies, right ?)...

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

no, they just do not want to have their hands tied + they do not want to spend resources on that... there is no market demand for that really... not only there is no market demand, but even those who argue strongly for DNG can't make a public stand and refuse to buy/use/market non DNG cameras... are you going to boycott Phase One, Jeff ? no... that is a part of the problem, you see.
 
Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.

making DNG an ISO standard does not eliminate any issues as to why DNG is not being used...
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2013, 11:21:19 AM »
ReplyReply

making DNG an ISO standard does not eliminate any issues as to why DNG is not being used...

Hum...so, having the DNG spec in the hands of the ISO won't mitigate the argument that Nikon and Canon don't adopt DNG because they don't want to be under the thumb of Adobe? So, are you saying having the ISO adopt DNG for TIFF-EP would be useless?

I hope you ain't on the committee that decides these things...
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8990



WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2013, 11:37:14 AM »
ReplyReply

no, they just do not want to have their hands tied + they do not want to spend resources on that... there is no market demand for that really... not only there is no market demand, but even those who argue strongly for DNG can't make a public stand and refuse to buy/use/market non DNG cameras... are you going to boycott Phase One, Jeff ? no... that is a part of the problem, you see.

Right, they don't care about some of their customer(s) who routinely fill the web with posts about not being able to use the software they wish on this new set of data (file, format, whatever you want to nit pick on, they can't access their data where they wish). And yet, as I've pointed out repeatedly, never once an issue with the JPEG data one could select in the same system. Can you explain why raw shooters have to suffer but JPEG shooter's don't?

There is no market demand for that really based on what data points we could examine? Or is this an opinion alone? What do you suppose the market reaction would be from JPEG shooter's if they had the same problems as raw shooters with respect to having to wait on software updates or roll over and use the software the manufacturer at this point forces on them?

The idea that the only options for customers is to suffer or boycott seems an excessive extreme. How about the people who recognize and show empathy for new camera users who are forced to wait for updates to their preferred software spend as much energy complaining about this issue as some do slamming DNG? You suppose that might help just a little?

Kind of reminds me of this debate on gun control in the US. Those who ask for background checks are told by the opposition it's not effective and that such and such killings would have occurred had such a law exist. They fail to recognize that even if the efforts succeed in a single case (which wouldn't get much press), that's an improvement over doing nothing.

As Jeff and I have said repeatedly here and on other forums: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Not affected by a new camera 'format' or file structure? Doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist and that pointing it out and making noise about it may affect change. Doing nothing, or worse, claiming that Adobe/DNG is the problem does nothing useful in terms of getting a fix. Complaining that DNG isn't (yet) an ISO compliant spec doesn't provide anything useful but noise as well. I really doubt that if DNG gets this badge, all of a sudden Nikon and Canon (and DNG/Adobe haters) will change a lick. The lack of this ISO badge is just another excuse to do nothing.

There's a problem here, what do YOU propose to fix it (assuming you give a crap about those people who are and continue to complain about this issue)?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2013, 01:34:21 PM »
ReplyReply

That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format. The easiest way for them seems to take the existing file format and modify the tags and fields they need to to have their software support the file.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.

Jeff....

Putting aside your arm waving and apparent racial/cultural bigotry....you have no idea why all/most/many/?? of the camera manufacturers create their RAW with slight differences from camera to camera.  .

I am sure they are not lazy....lazy developers which cause downstream cost increases to the manufaturers get fired real fast.  Arrogant...maybe...but again, not if iteffects the bottom line. 

Avoiding standards (USA based or not)...possibly with good reason, as many have said, standards can be good, but in many cases constrain innovation....as you just said, "standards committees move slow(ly)"

Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8990



WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2013, 01:42:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Putting aside your arm waving and apparent racial/cultural bigotry....you have no idea why all/most/many/?? of the camera manufacturers create their RAW with slight differences from camera to camera. 

The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial. The facts are the facts, what we see every time a new camera with a proprietary file is thrust upon us. Whom here who purchase a digital camera system prefers this behavior and why? No matter how many times I ask that question, no reply.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2013, 01:45:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure I understand what the manufacturers give up by enabling writing to DNG or some other widely accepted RAW format.  I suppose there could be some proprietary information there somewhere but I'm sure there is a relatively simple way to work around that.  I'm a Canon shooter so I can't speak about other brands, but they give their DPP software away...so it's not like they will lose sales on their own raw converter.  On the plus side, if they make their files easier to read in the USER's choice of software that can only mean a more satisfied customer group.  One of the sayings we use around here (my company) is make the customer want to do business with you.  One of the ways to do that is make it EASY to do business with you.  You won't find any automated telephone menus here, and anyone can take an order...

Keep it simple (for the customer).
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2013, 01:46:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, they don't care about some of their customer(s) who routinely fill the web with posts about not being able to use the software they wish on this new set of data (file, format, whatever you want to nit pick on, they can't access their data where they wish). And yet, as I've pointed out repeatedly, never once an issue with the JPEG data one could select in the same system. Can you explain why raw shooters have to suffer but JPEG shooter's don't?

There is no market demand for that really based on what data points we could examine? Or is this an opinion alone? What do you suppose the market reaction would be from JPEG shooter's if they had the same problems as raw shooters with respect to having to wait on software updates or roll over and use the software the manufacturer at this point forces on them?

The idea that the only options for customers is to suffer or boycott seems an excessive extreme. How about the people who recognize and show empathy for new camera users who are forced to wait for updates to their preferred software spend as much energy complaining about this issue as some do slamming DNG? You suppose that might help just a little?

Kind of reminds me of this debate on gun control in the US. Those who ask for background checks are told by the opposition it's not effective and that such and such killings would have occurred had such a law exist. They fail to recognize that even if the efforts succeed in a single case (which wouldn't get much press), that's an improvement over doing nothing.

As Jeff and I have said repeatedly here and on other forums: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Not affected by a new camera 'format' or file structure? Doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist and that pointing it out and making noise about it may affect change. Doing nothing, or worse, claiming that Adobe/DNG is the problem does nothing useful in terms of getting a fix. Complaining that DNG isn't (yet) an ISO compliant spec doesn't provide anything useful but noise as well. I really doubt that if DNG gets this badge, all of a sudden Nikon and Canon (and DNG/Adobe haters) will change a lick. The lack of this ISO badge is just another excuse to do nothing.

There's a problem here, what do YOU propose to fix it (assuming you give a crap about those people who are and continue to complain about this issue)?

Andrew...

You present no data points to support your OPINION, yet ask (demand) data points to demean opinions you do not believe in.

If you read through the posts here, and other threads on similar DNG discussions, you will see that those who do not support your view do not hate DNG or Adobe....they just do not agree with you.

You believe there is a problem in need of a solution.  Not all see it that way.

For every person who whinges that they have t wait for RAW support for their camera or, good forbid, upgrade to get support, there are (in MY OPINION) just as many or more that understand the delay/cost and can live with it.

BTW...you gun debate argument is a poor analogy.  Are you know going to say the Nikon/Canon are the NRA....actively buying of Senators to kill any chance Adobe has of making DNG a success....come on now :-)
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2013, 01:56:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure I understand what the manufacturers give up by enabling writing to DNG or some other widely accepted RAW format.  I suppose there could be some proprietary information there somewhere but I'm sure there is a relatively simple way to work around that.  I'm a Canon shooter so I can't speak about other brands, but they give their DPP software away...so it's not like they will lose sales on their own raw converter.  On the plus side, if they make their files easier to read in the USER's choice of software that can only mean a more satisfied customer group.  One of the sayings we use around here (my company) is make the customer want to do business with you.  One of the ways to do that is make it EASY to do business with you.  You won't find any automated telephone menus here, and anyone can take an order...

Keep it simple (for the customer).

John, that is basically the question I asked.  What is the reason?  If it costs them nothing, I am sure that Adobe could easily convince them to do it.  So there has to be some cost...either in $$s, development efficiencies, fear of standard lock in, or proprietary data exposure.

I doubt the proprietary as RAW code can be easily explored and dissected.  Internal to the camera stuff is a different story.
Logged

John
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2013, 02:03:13 PM »
ReplyReply

John, that is basically the question I asked.  What is the reason?  If it costs them nothing, I am sure that Adobe could easily convince them to do it.  So there has to be some cost...either in $$s, development efficiencies, fear of standard lock in, or proprietary data exposure.

I doubt the proprietary as RAW code can be easily explored and dissected.  Internal to the camera stuff is a different story.

That's sort of my point, if they do BOTH..allowing the user to shoot in the proprietary RAW, OR shoot in straight DNG(perhaps) they solve the issue for everyone.  That prevents them from being locked in on the standard.  If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2013, 02:04:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial. The facts are the facts, what we see every time a new camera with a proprietary file is thrust upon us. Whom here who purchase a digital camera system prefers this behavior and why? No matter how many times I ask that question, no reply.

I have no idea what you mean in this rant.

"Facts are the facts"  If anyone else used that, you would be all over them.  Where are your facts??

I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented.

EDIT....wait a minute...did you say "The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial."  I thought your argument was for the user..?  I guess you are admitting the facts point to benefit for Adobe DE.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 02:15:20 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2013, 02:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

That's sort of my point, if they do BOTH..allowing the user to shoot in the proprietary RAW, OR shoot in straight DNG(perhaps) they solve the issue for everyone.  That prevents them from being locked in on the standard.  If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.

Doing both adds costs to development.  Adobe's development costs are reduced and the camera manufacturer's costs go up.  Little improvement to the user. 

In fact, the add'l development for the DNG might delay the announcement date.  Or the DNG output might be later.  Or, the firmware code would need to increase to be able to handle both RAW and DNG, effecting the timing within the camera.  Etc, etc, etc.

They would still be constrained by the standards as they would still need to fit whatever they did into the DNG standard.  Imaging the whinging if a new function was only made available in RAW, not DNG...because it did not fit into the DNG standard.
Logged

John
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2013, 02:26:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Doing both adds costs to development.  Adobe's development costs are reduced and the camera manufacturer's costs go up.  Little improvement to the user. 

In fact, the add'l development for the DNG might delay the announcement date.  Or the DNG output might be later.  Or, the firmware code would need to increase to be able to handle both RAW and DNG, effecting the timing within the camera.  Etc, etc, etc.

They would still be constrained by the standards as they would still need to fit whatever they did into the DNG standard.  Imaging the whinging if a new function was only made available in RAW, not DNG...because it did not fit into the DNG standard.

It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively).  The point on the firmware is valid, although it might be a one-time thing unless the DNG standard doesn't stay consistent.

One thing that did come to mind after my last post was some of the internal lens corrections manufactures are starting to do.  I'm not sure how they facilitate that into a "standard" DNG as their methods may be different from one manufacture to another.  That in itself could provide a road block.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2013, 02:32:49 PM »
ReplyReply

DNG can include XMP, and the X stands for "extensible". They could add whatever they want, even encrypt that proprietary data.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2013, 02:42:35 PM »
ReplyReply

If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.

Well, what I'm about to tell you, I experienced personally in several scenarios with both Nikon and Canon.

At one point, I was told by somebody at Canon that an upcoming (then) camera was going to offer DNG as an optional file format. But something happened between Adobe and Canon that made Canon angry (which I can't disclose) so Canon decided to screw DNG (that was pretty much a quote). Since that time, some relations have improved but Canon is of the mind that they will simply not kowtow to Adobe and DNG. If it becomes and ISO standard, they would reconsider and likely adopt it as part of a new TIFF-EP. Note the "likely", no guarantees...

In terms of Nikon, there have been several cases where Adobe has really pissed off Nikon (and certain people at Nikon) and not on purpose...one of the situations was the white balance encryption situation with the D2X where Thomas rejected reverse engineering the white balance because it was encrypted and by contract, he was not allowed to decrypt stuff (which has DMCA implications), just decode it with does not have any DMCA implications. That left Nikon in the situation where they had to blink and offer a mini-SDK for decoding the encrypted white balance info. Nikon lost some serious face in that one.

The original situation happened because Adobe (read Thomas) actually had the audacity of decoding not only Nikon's NEF files in the first place but also Canon's raw files. What this meant is that a user could use Camera Raw to open both Nikon and Canon raw files and did not need to worry about using the camera software. This leveling of the paying field actually had an impact on an initiative that Nikon almost pulled off. I won't mention the players, but the initiative would have been a major coupe for Nikon and the fact that there was one software that could open both Nikon AND Canon cameras ruined it.

But, as far as I know, the bottom line in both Nikon and Canon rejecting DNG comes down to the simple fact that they just don't WANT to adopt any standards. Standards in Japan are an entirely different concept than here in the US where standards are thought of more as a good thing. Standards in Japan are very, very difficult to produce with any hope the standards will be followed. So, Nikon and Canon will continue to drag their feet for as long as possible (which I think is one reason the new TIFF-EP with DNG is taking so long–although I don't have facts to back that up).

There are some Nikon and Canon competitors who have adopted DNG, and that actually further deepens the resistance to DNG. Within the two main companies, there are departments that act as fiefdoms; at the top of the food chain are the departments that are producing the cameras and the firmware...from what I gather the resistance to DNG does NOT come from from them and they may actually perfer that new cameras were supported of the bat. Then, there are departments that control the processing software...and it is from these folks that the greatest resistance comes. Even though a good 75-80% of all raw processing is done in ACR/LR, the camera software still likes to claim that only in their software can you get the best results. It would not surprise me at all that refusing to adopt DNG is largely because the camera software guys don't want to make it any easier on Adobe (Thomas) incorporating new cameras because that give the camera software a period of exclusive processing till Adobe adds the cameras. It forces people who buy unsupported cameras to at least try the camera software for a period.

Ah...the stories I could tell...maybe some day I'll name names :~)

All told, DNG has been a really good thing for the industry because if nothing else, it helped teach camera makers how to create raw file formats. Camera companies really didn't have much experience or knowledge in developing file formats before releasing their first cameras. Prior to the current CR2, Canon used .TIF and .CRW. The .TIF actually caused a whole lot of problems for Canon and it's users. When Canon first shipped the 1Ds, they wrote raw tiffs...the only problem was any software that could read tiffs could open the raw file, extract the preview file which was tiny and the raw file could be written over if the user saved the tiny file as a tiff. I remember the look in one Canon guys eyes when this was demoed to him. It was a look of abject TERROR! Hence the development of CR2 for the next camera :~)

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad