Scanning LF Negative 4"x5"

<p>I agree most times 4000 dpi captures at least 80 percent of the detail available on my film. That's why I scan almost everything with a Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p>Regarding the exercise for comparing prints; there is a large difference that I see on the 24x30 print between the 5DII at 150 dpi and 6x7 film at 360 dpi (native scan).</p>

<p>The 5DII shot above is not mine (or my lens). It was provided to me for use in the forum as a good sample of sharpness from the 5DII. Not sure what you mean by stack the deck but please provide your best sample of a 5DII upsampled from 150 dpi to 360 dpi. I will gladly print it to evaluate it.</p>

<p>Just for clarification Kelly, is it your opinion that a 24x30 print from a 5DII (150dpi) has the same detail and quality than a print from a 4000dpi scan from 6x7 film (360dpi)?</p>

<p>With large responses I sometimes miss the overall statement.</p>

<p>Mauro; Here is my debate or issue:</p>

<p>***The 5DII shot of yours (left) just does not look that sharp;</p>

<p>that is why it can lead somebody in the mire for comparing to another image.</p>

<p>Maybe the lens was not the best; or not at a good f-stop. I just mention all this because the fuzzy white hairs or whatever look not that well resolved. ie one could downsample and not loose details. Thus it appears up up-sampled an image that is already not sharp.</p>

<p> Maybe you can find another 5DII image that is sharp to use as a comparison. This would be better.</p>

<p>At full resolution the Canon 5DII is a 5616 x 3744 pixel rig. That means one would get a 156 ppi image at about 24x36mm; close to you example at 150 ppi. The pixel pitch on the sensor would be 36mm divided by 5616 pixels; ie 36000 microns/5616 pixels= 6.41 microns. I got 156 ppi from 5616 pixels/36 inches=156 pixels per inch. ie one has a 24x36 inch image at 156 pixels per inch without up sizing.</p>

<p>My shot is with a 36 megapixel scan back from circa 1996; an old Phase One 4x5 scan back that really scans a 7x10cm area. It makes a 5000 x 7000 pixel image. The pixel density is way larger than a 5dII; it is 100mm/7000 pixels; ie 100,000 microns/7000 pixels = 14 microns. This shot is with a 1947 4x5 Speed Graphic with a 150mm F9 Apo Ronar about at F16.</p>

<p> ***I TOO see a big difference between your left and right shots; the left one even when I reduced it to a non upsized version looks not that sharp.</p>

<p>Thus in summary from here it looks like you have a crummy canon 5DII image; ie one not so sharp.</p>

<p>Here is another thought I had on a walk this morning: What does it mean when we scan at 4000dpi vs. 8000dpi? To me, we're not looking for more image resolution, lens resolution, or film resolution. We're looking for silver resolution. Are the edges of the grain sharp, or not? </p>

<p>A 4000dpi scan is not going to give you more image quality than a 2000dpi scan, but it <em>may </em>give you more grain resolution. It depends largely on the scanner quality as a major factor. So while we're talking about MTF charts and the like, that doesn't seem terribly relevant to what I look for in my hi-rez scans. If I took the image with a Kraponar lens, then the image is never going to get better with a great scan.</p>

<p>Mr. Wilson...<br>

<br />1. 50 lp/mm was rounding down. With the 1951 USAF target there is not a converging curve of lines. There are lines printed at specific distances apart. As one is able to distinguish each pair of lines the the value jumps up more than an integer. The difference in value is relevant to and changeable by the distance from the nodal point of the lens and the lens "length", in this case 210mm. In preparation for writing this response I looked up my lens here: <br>

<br /><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a><br>

<br />I think the numbers I got for F:8 were about the same as he got for F:16... 67, 67, 54, which gave me better than 50 at the edge. I am not sure about my numbers this long after the fact. <br>

<br />2. Contrast of the target? I do not know the number that Edmund Scientific assigns to their paper 24" x 36" (nominal) target, do you? Giving the publisher the benefit of the doubt, I would think that their target is a lot closet to the 1000:1 standard rather than the 6:1 standard. It looks very black and very white to me. That last sentence is the only honest one I can make without assuming that which I do not know. <br>

<br />More significant is the person's judgment and the equipment he/she uses to view the results on film. Scanners can give a lower value by being out of registration with their scanned material. Their software can also help the results look more definitive than they really are. I use a 60x, 100x and 300x microscope to view the film. After that it is a value judgment as to what constitutes a definable line. Also unless your eyes are older than 90 years, you may get even better numbers than I did. Younger eyes will see a greater difference. <br>

<br />Mr. Kelley.... <br>

<br />"What I find in printing for the public is most all folks are *FIXATED* on the 300 ppi number; thus folks are always upsizing to this number." <br>

<br />1. Not me... I like to use what the printer uses. I also use scan values and crop so there will not be any rescaling or resizing as the data enters the printer. Many printers are set up for even multiples/divisors of 300 PPI (NOT dpi). They do the least interpolation (a chance to reduce sharpness) at 75, 150, 300 & 600 input. Canon and HP inkjets use that standard. My best ink jet is an Epson which used the 90, 180, 360 and 720 chain. I also have a Fuji Pictography 4500N in my basement. It uses 200 and 400 PPI on silver halide paper. A 12 x 18 sure looks good at 400, IF I did my job with the input. <br>

<br />2. Yes, upsizing or up scaling or whatever does not add to the original information base. High end programs like Genuine Fractals can make an upsized scan look better on paper but cannot add to resolution. <br>

<br />3. IF..one starts with high definition film, having shot higher contrast views, used a tripod, used an excellent lens and gotten the exposure right, an 8000 PPI scan can get more real data than a 4000 PPI scan. Even if there is the equivalent of only 4000 PPI on the film source, an 8000 PPI scan can do better because it reduces registration errors. But how often does one find input with 4000 PPI (78.7 lp/mm) worth of definition on film? Looking at the hevanet reference above you will see many lenses touted as good to great by "professionals" only having 20 lp/mm or less at the edges. At those values even the 2000 PPI scan is overkill. <br>

<br />In general...<br>

<br />PPI only came upon us with the digital age. I like prints through glass and good glass at that. The square boxes of scans and pixels cannot really represent the irregular shape of the dye clumps or silver grains. Square peg, round hole? <br>

<br />Furthermore, how much sharpness is required? How mush unsharpness or fuzz is acceptable. The last time I was at a big city photographic exhibit was about five years ago in San Diego. THE artistically "in" photographer of the big city of San Diego, CA had an exhibition/sale in the theater building where I was to attend a play. Most of the stuff was between two feet and four feet on the longest side. A few of the best reached my sense of poor quality. The rest, even worse, looked like way over enlarged Lomography. Was that the in look? If so, cutting off heads, poor composition and nothing subjects must be in also. I would not hang a picture of my ex mother in law, if taken and printed that poorly, over my toilet. <br>

<br />The prices seemed awfully high, but then there weren't empty spaces on the walls either. They were not exactly blowing out the door. Is this level of professional work typical? Are we so dumbed down as a society or as photographers? Hopefully his reason for the show was that he was the panty-boy for one San Diego's more prominent decadent dowagers. <br>

<br />Real photographers still use film and print through glass. <br>

<br />A. T. Burke </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In all my scanning since 1989 for the public; all I can say is 600 megabytes is total bull dung for 4x5; you drank the Koolaid. It is turd in a punchbowl number. It is like saying Home depot has <strong>80 Horsepower lawn (m)owers</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bet you $100 that it would sell.<br>

And I don't mean something out of a movie or a redneck tailgater party; I mean a regular push-mower with 80hp printed on it.</p>

<h2><a href="http://www.ridelust.com/lawnmower-world-land-speed-record-set-on-welsh-beach/">Lawnmower World Land Speed Record</a></h2>

<p>Kelly, the 150 dpi image from the 5dII needs to be upsized (by PS or the printer) to 360dpi for the Epson 7880.</p>

<p>There is no way around it.</p>

<p>Regarding printing at 360 dpi vs 150 dpi, you can pick the sharpest 5DII picture available on-line and print it at both 150 dpi and 360 dpi. </p>

<p>If you don't think there is a loss of quality on the print, then 150 dpi is fine for you.</p>

<p>Also see my article here:<br>

<a href="http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm">http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't know if anyone has already posted this, but just in case here is a link to some large format lens test results. I think these are 4x5 results.</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</p>

<p>A few of the lenses resolve 80 lpm or almost 80 lpm in the center. Most are around 60 lpm, more or less.</p>

<p>Of course the edges are worse. However, I think that ideally one would want to come as close to preserving the center detail as possible rather than just the worst part of the image.</p>

<p>Life isn't always ideal, especially if one has financial limitations (as most of us do), but at least here are some real numbers from actual lens tests that can help frame the discussion.</p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I took the DPReview 5D mkII ISO 100 sample (E5D2hSLI00100_NR_STD.JPG), scaled it in Photoshop to 24x36" at 360 ppi to match your 24x30" size for 6x7, and then took a 342 x 1064 crop from one of the bottles. Unfortunately I can't post it directly to photo.net (I got in trouble for that once before), but I believe I can post a link to it. Here it is next to your 5D mkII and MF crops, both unsharpened and with Smart Sharpen 1.5 x 100%:<br /> https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bz1sfHfXHVDCNWIxOGRmNjgtOWQ0MS00YmRkLTg2MGMtOTM0NzFkMzQyOTQw&hl=en&authkey=CJHd3tMN</p>

<p>The thing I abhor about this is that it's not the same target under conditions which are equal to whatever degree is possible. But it's clear that the 5D mkII is capable of recording more detail and providing greater sharpness than is observed in the 5D mkII sample you presented next to your MF scan.</p>

<p>At their best, a 6x7 film scan file will offer higher IQ than a 5D mkII file. And this higher IQ will be quite noticeable given challenging subject matter and very large prints. I find it takes three 7D files stitched to clearly match or exceed a top notch MF scan of a challenging subject, which gives some indication of where MF sits.</p>

<p>That said, I've printed crops from the various Rand McNally tests we've shot and presented in past threads, including my 7D tests, Les Sarile's MF scans, and one of your MF scan crops. To my surprise at the time, there was very little to discern between them at 24" and even 30" equivalent size. The MF samples were better, but that does not become clearly evident or important until one prints at sizes larger than about 30". This is consistent with my observations of prints of real world subject matter. (Note that I am assuming optimum processing when enlarging the 7D file, particularly sharpening and local contrast enhancement. Also note that RAW files yield higher resolution and my comparison involved a 7D RAW file.)</p>

<p>Regarding the larger issue of dpi/ppi in this thread: 300 ppi is not a magical number. Neither is 360 ppi. Humans can discern much finer details given monochromatic line art, and generally struggle to discern that much detail given lower contrast colors. Optimum ppi depends greatly on subject matter and viewing distance. And sharpness of coarse details can matter more than resolution or sharpness of finer details, again depending on subject matter, viewing distance, audience, etc.</p>

<p>Stephen gave us nothing to go on in terms of subject matter, audience, quality of the film, etc. But odds are he can get away with a roughly 200 ppi print, or 2000 ppi scan.</p>

<p>That's true Daniel, unless one is close (a couple feet) to the print the difference may not be noticeable between 150 dpi and 360 dpi. That's why I point out that it is relevant for artistic display but it may not be for commercial or casual applications.</p>

<p>I will go to the link and print it.</p>

<p>I don't view this as a film vs digital thing, in fact digital has nothing to do with this. What I see is people who believe that you have to have 300 ppi no matter what and then show samples that are very soft at the pixel level, yeah if you are using soft pixels you better have 300 ppi.</p>

<p> Mauro your image of the leaf that is scanned at 4000 ppi is very soft so much so that when resized to half resolution and back up it is very hard to see a difference. In the link below you can do a mouse roll over to flip between the original and an image that has been down sized to half resolution and back up, the text show a change but hardly any in the image. Clearly there would be next to nothing lost using a 2000 ppi scan in this case.</p>

<p><a href="http://sewcon.com/compare/index.php?photo1=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.photo.net%2Fattachments%2Fbboard%2F00X%2F00X7WU-271385584.jpg&text1=Original+&photo2=http%3A%2F%2Fsewcon.com%2Fcompare%2F2000ppi.jpg&text2=Down+sample+to+50%25+and+back+up&B1=Submit">Link to comparison</a></p>

<p><br />Now if we do the same test using a sharp image the difference is huge</p>

<p><a href="http://sewcon.com/compare/index.php?photo1=+http%3A%2F%2Fsewcon.com%2Fcompare%2Fdown_sampled.jpg&text1=Original+&photo2=http%3A%2F%2Fsewcon.com%2Fcompare%2Fsharp_image.jpg&text2=Down+sample+to+50%25+and+back+up&B1=Submit">Link to comparision using a sharp image<br /></a></p>

<p>When we talk about how many pixels are needed we really need to talk about how sharp the image is at the pixel level.</p>

<p>Sending an image to a printer as a 8x10 inch image at 300 ppi goes back before photo.net; before most all here even saw a digital camera. It is a 1980's number. Think MTV time frame. </p>

<p>If one takes a National Geographic printed cover; it measures about 160 to 175 line screen. You can measure this with a C-Thru Ruler line screen device. You rotated the template until one gets a star pattern; then you read the line screen number.</p>

<p>A higher line screen is used for a higher quality printing; one done with dots; ie offset lithography. </p>

<p>A Line Screen is the measure of how many halftone lines are printed in a linear inch. The value is expressed as Lines Per Inch ie LPI. You use CMYK inks. In Black and White; ie where only a black dot pattern is used on white paper; this process goes back 200 years.<br>

National Geographic is about 160 to 175 line screen; a regular magazine might be only 120 to 150. Newspapers are in the 85 region. A cheap flyer might be only 65 line screen.</p>

<p>With papers that absorb a lot of ink; the paper limits the line screen level because the dots will merge to a blob</p>

<p>In Inkjet 15 to say 22 years ago if one had a "600 dpi class printer"; a rough rule of thumb is it would only support half this number as the ppi of the full size image/ print sent to it. Thus a 600 dpi printer would only support a 300 ppi image. My 36" wide color inkjet printers from 1991 and 1994 are just like this ; both are 300 dpi devices. If I send images 24x36" SHARP IMAGES WITH GOBS OF DETAILS at 100, 120, 140, 150, 160, 170. 180 ppi that are NOT UPSIZED; about 160 is about all it will support. Higher numbers buy one nothing at all; no more details appear.</p>

<p>The 300 ppi of the prints image number at actual target size comes about because that is what is required to be sharp when about 1 foot away; when a printer of at least 600 dpi is used. *IF* one makes a mess of sharp images say at 600 pixels per inch, 550, 500, 450, 350, 300, 250, 200, 150, 100; and one has a mess of folks examine them; you well get a mess of answers. NONE of this is anything really new; it was done when Reagan was in office. It was done before digital cameras existed. It goes back to the DOS era. In Fax machines it goes back into the 1960s and 1970's! <br>

You will get "different answers" depending on the subject matter. With our 1990 DOS engineering copier scanner; it was a 400 dpi scan; and about a 400 ppi print. When one had fine features; a scan at 400 and print at 400 reproduced more details than scan at 300 dpi and print at 300 ppi. This whole jargon probably bothers newcomers. The reason 400 is better than 300 its that one has a high contast line work one is dealing with; ie non pictoral. IF one made a greyscale image with a buckshot pattern and sent it the 1990 machine; its real resolution is far less; about only 150 to 200 since one is making the image with a dot pattern.</p>

<p>In maps that I make and print on a 11x17 20k buck color copier; the device is a 600 dpi class printer. With a combo map that is part photo, part topo map and part my custom text; the fine text and fine lines on the map govern the "ppi " of the image. A 11x17 inch image at 300 ppi looks great; *BUT* 350 to 360 does allow some more details; 400 is to the point where practically only a few might tell if one looked at page for 5 minutes; and compared back and forth the 360 versus the 400 one. About 1/2 of the folks see no difference. </p>

<p>With EVERY printer that I buy; I just run my own tests to see what the printer will support; and use others comments as only a rough starting point. Having done this now since the 1970's 36" pen plotter era; I find it interesting how folks debate printer numbers without an tests at all. </p>

<p>Without any mention of the paper used; you all are are really hip shooting at the higher ppi settings to a printer.</p>

<p>The paper has a strong influence of the resolution supported in lith printing and inkjet printing; it is often the gating item today; more important than the printer itself.</p>

<p>With a big new 54" printer here; it is called a 1200 dpi device for the nozzle pitch; and the Print resolution spec is hawked as "up to" 2400 x 1200 dpi max. If one sends a USAF target so it is like dime size; glossy high buck paper here with about no bleed shows it has details in the 600 to 800 ppi range; only if one gooses the test to lighten up the black a tad to reduce micro bleed. With a pictorial image; the support practically is way less; about 300 to 600; depending on the paper and subject matter.</p>

<p>About 90 percent of the giant posters I do are from files that when not upsized are in the 40 to 120 ppi region; for color posters/pictures that are 24x36", 30x42", 36x48" sizes.</p>

<p>Most folks do not own 20 plus megapixel cameras; most folks 35mm slides hold no more info past a 4000 dpi scans</p>

<p>EXAMPLE : When somebodies 24x36mm slide is scanned at 4000 dpi for a 24x36" poster; it works out to about a 158 ppi image at 24x36 inches. Whether if it is the 158 ppi image; or upsized to 250 or 360 ppi ; here I never see any real difference; even after 20 years of using Novajets; Lasermasters, Canons, HP's , Epsons, Oce's etc. One is just "upsizing" an image that typically really not even a 4000 dpi anyway. You are just polishing a turd that as already polished. One really does it to please a customer. Folks watch CSI and believe that making pixels up helps make the license plate appear. In practice one just upsizes smaller sub 150 ppi images to about 150 to 200 for smoothness; not details. </p>

<p>If that 35mm slide scanned at 4000 dpi is for a 36x54 inch poster; it is about a 105 ppi image at 36x54 inches. If the viewer is at 3 feet; 105 ppi is fine. If it is some artsy print one might upsize it to 150 to 200 to smooth it out; 300 will look exactly the same; it just makes a lay useless boated file.</p>

<p>The average person believes that if that 36x54 inch print is printed with an image upsized to 360 ppi at 36x54"; that it is ALWAYS better. They believe this no matter if the image is from a Hit camera; cell phone; or common 4000 dpi 35mm film scan. Most all the time it really is turd polishing. *IF* one really has a naturally killer sharp non upisized image that is 200 ppi at 36x54 inches; a mild upsize and mild sharpening and a 300 ppi or 360 ppi image may look a tad sharper.</p>

<p>The real problem is folks "BEST CASE" the entire chain of events</p>

<p>As a practical a matter few in any folks really even get 50 line pairs per mm on film in pictoral images.</p>

<p>The average person on the dpi Koolaid agenda quotes a test report showing their 50mm F1.4 lens recorded 78 line pairs per mm back in 1983 at F8; shot with Panatomic-X and 1:1000 USAF test targets. They then bring in a iso 800 Kodak Max zoom color negative of their kid at soccer. It is underexposed; the DOF is shallow; it was probably shot at F2.8; one has some micro subject motion too. With a loupe one can tell it doesnt not hold gobs of info. They want a farmed out drum scan; but you know that a 2700 dpi film scanner would be overkill. You scan at 4000 dpi on the Nikon Coolscan please their ego.</p>

<p>Now then it gets to the giant poster; they bring up upsizing and what dpi/ppi to print at. One cannot tell then that they are stupid. Their 35mm negative really only holds what a flatbed will capture; ie about 1800 to 2000. Thus one really might have only about 40 ppi worth of OK pixels at the target giant posters size of 36x54"; but they want it printed at 360 or 400 ppi "since it is better".</p>

<p>The bulk of folks who want posters want to dictate to upsize; "because it is better". One has a dumber customer than 15 to 20 years ago; folks are in to BS more; ie most all think more pixels are better. No wonder the world is in a slump; folks lack brains. Customers who Know nothing or know alot and have been around awhile are the easiest to deal with. Folks who know some often want to dictate how to use a printer; that they have never use before. It is like if Goober shoots a duck and brings it to a 5 star eating place and dictates how to cook it; in an unknown kitchen. <br>

There is a point with each scanner and printer that higher levels buy one nothing.</p>

<p>Please allow me to add the following insights from practical experience.</p>

<p>- The labs where I have had large prints made print at 200 DPI, not 300 DPI, when dealing with images larger than 30 inches on the long side. WCI claims that their large Chromira prints actually look BETTER when printed at 200 DPI. The printer's internal algorithms seem to like 200 DPI better than 300.</p>

<p>- I've seen 15 foot wide prints made from 35mm film. Yes, I said 15 FEET. They look amazing from the other side of the room. From three feet away, they look like unintelligible globs, i.e. like magnified newsprint.</p>

<p>- Viewing distance matters, there's no reason why a sharp 4x5 exposure cannot be printed to 55 inches when scanned optimally. A 300 MB 8-bit scan or a 600 MB 16-bit scan should be just about right. It won't look as sharp as a 30-inch print when view from six inches away, but it will look just fine from two or three feet away. How close do you have to stand to a 55-inch print, anyway? You can't even see the whole thing from a viewing distance of two feet.</p>

<p>I found a web page that discussed some of the issues being discussed here, and it uses some experimental results. Here is the link.<br>

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html</p>

<p>A couple or relevant points from the web page: </p>

<p>Based on the experimentally measured acuity of the human eye the author of the web page states "Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity." To apply some interpretation to this, if you have three colors and 16 bits per pixel per color you have an estimate of 444 megabytes.</p>

<p>The author also comments on lines per inch:</p>

<p>"in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50)."</p>

<p>What he doesn't say here is the viewing distance or the print size. However, he links to one of his own web pages that gives a little more information:</p>

<p>"In dim lighting, such as a 60 watt light bulb at 3 feet (~1 meter) I can't tell any difference between the 300 and 600 ppi prints. But in good lighting (daytime near a window, or typical office lighting) the 600 ppi print is noticeably sharper."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The mouse over is very cool Scott.<br>

I see a difference on the Ektar scan but not on the 5DII. This is expected since the 5DII does not have that level of detail to begin with since it is already upsized.<br>

Even with the Ektar sample, I think the subject on film was probably lower frequency than 4000 dpi.</p>

<p>Scott, here is an example with TMAX 400 you can print to evaluate. <br>

Also consider than an original capture at 2000 dpi won't be as good as a 4000 dpi capture downsampled. </p>

<p>Can you do the mouse over thing with the two crops of TMAX 400?</p><div></div>

<p>Mauro,<br>

Feel free to our the mouse over page, you just give it the url to two image at the bottom and the text for each and hit Submit. This will make a rather large url but one that can be used as a link in Photo.net forums. To get the page without image already on it just go to <a href="http://sewcon.com/compare/">http://sewcon.com/compare/</a> <br>

This page only work well if the two images have the same dimentions.</p>

<p>The cool part is I don't load the photos onto my server, I just past the links on and so the bandwidth for me is very low.</p>

<p>As for the Ektar scan, this is a very small difference between them but not much, the main point is that 300 ppi of a fairly soft scan like that are not the same as much sharper pixels. For example a print made from a 4000 ppi scan of 35mm compare to a 1000 ppi scan from 4x5 will clearly show a much sharper print with the LF. In fact I believe that 170 ppi print from a 1000 ppi scan will look sharper then a 300 ppi print from a 4000 ppi scan. The point is the sharper the pixels the fewer of them you need per inch.</p>

<p>Mauro,<br>

I am out of sync with you, if you can post the two crops as separate photos then I can easily to the mouse over thing.</p>

<p>For that matter you can also do the mouse over thing as long as you have urls to the two crops. BTW I assume you know you can right click on the image to get its url.</p>

<p>I did not know how to get the url or to do the mouse thing. Trying it now...</p>