Color space and compression question.

i have a client that i am doing an animation for, i am using their supplied rgb breakdown of their brand colors.
the client is concerned that their brand colours do not look the same when i send them quicktimes.
i have tried sending h264, x264 and prores, all look different.
is it actually possible to export a h264 and have the colours look identical to how they look in after effects?
is the a quicktime gamma shift thing?
are my project settings wrong?
id be interested to hear as to what your project settings are and what you export for "master" etc..
my after effects project settings are set up at srgbiec61966+2.1 at 16bit.
"match legacy after effects quicktime gamma adjustment" is ticked on.
"compensate for scene referred profiles" is ticked on.

so how do I go about getting the colours in my animation export to look identical to the brand colours?
colour spaces are not just for exotic footage. they are there to aid in eg. importing srgb photoshop files into srgb after effects to eliminate colour shifts.

Similar Messages

Possible to get the color space and resolution from the .eps file

Hi all,
We have using the InDesign CS3 5.0.4, windows, javascript. We need to get the color space and resolution of the graphics (.eps) file using scripting.
The properties of the image like (actualPpi and effectivePpi will return the value only for the .tiff. and .jpg etc) but it will not return the .eps file resolution values.
Kindly give me the suggesting for the decrepancies.
Regards,
Nagaraj

... open them programmatically in PhotoShop, read out resolution and color space ...
On opening them in Photoshop, it asks you "what resolution shall I use, and what color space shall I apply?"
A single EPS may contain any number of embedded bitmaps, with any horizontal and vertical resolution, and in any color space. You can use only a few of these with Illustrator -- and even only one at a time with Photoshop --, but other programs allow just about every possible combination.
Not to mention procedurally generated bitmaps, also possible with PostScript.

Color Space and Bit Depth - What Makes Sense?

I'm constantly confused about which color space and bit depth to choose for various things.
Examples:
- Does it make any sense to choose sRGB and 16-bits? (I thought sRGB was 8-bit by nature, no?)
- Likewise for AdobeRGB - are the upper 8-bits empty if you use 16-bits?
- What is the relationship between Nikon AdobeWide RGB, and AdobeRGB? - if a software supports one, will it support the other?
- ProPhoto/8-bits - is there ever a reason?...
I could go on, but I think you get the idea...
Any help?
Rob

So, it does not really make sense to use ProPhoto/8 for output (or for anything else I guess(?)), even if its supported, since it is optimized for an extended gamut, and if your output device does not encompass the gamut, then you've lost something since your bits will be spread thinner in the "most important" colors.
Correct, you do not want to do prophotoRGB 8bit anything. It is very easy to get posterization with it. Coincidentally, if you print from Lightroom and let the driver manage and do not check 16-bit output, Lightroom outputs prophotoRGB 8bits to the driver. This is rather annoying as it is very easy to get posterizaed prints this way.
It seems that AdobeRGB has been optimized more for "important" colors and so if you have to scrunch down into an 8-bit jpeg, then its the best choice if supported - same would hold true for an 8-bit tif I would think (?)
Correct on both counts. If there is color management and you go 8 bits adobeRGB is a good choice. This is only really true for print targets though as adobeRGB encompasses more of a typical CMYK gamut than sRGB. For display targets such as the web you will be better off always using sRGB as 99% of displays are closer to that and so you don't gain anything. Also, 80% of web browsers is still not color managed.
On a theoretical note: I still don't understand why if image data is 12 or 14 bits and the image format uses 16 bits, why there has to be a boundary drawn around the gamut representation. But for practical purposes, maybe it doesn't really matter.
Do realitze hat the original image in 12 to 14 bits is in linear gamma as that is how the sensor reacts to light. However formats for display are always gamma corrected for efficiency, because the human eye reacts non-linearly to light and because typical displays have a gamma powerlaw response of brightness/darkness. Lightroom internally uses a 16-bit linear space. This is more bits than the 12 or 14 bits simply to avoid aliasing errors and other numeric errors. Similarly the working space is chosen larger than the gamut cameras can capture in order to have some overhead that allows for flexibility and avoids blowing out in intermediary stages of the processing pipeline. You have to choose something and so prophotoRGB, one of the widest RGB spaces out there is used. This is explained quite well here.
- Is there any reason not to standardize 8-bit tif or jpg files on AdobeRGB and leave sRGB for the rare cases when legacy support is more important than color integrity?
Actually legacy issues are rampant. Even now, color management is very spotty, even in shops oriented towards professionals. Also, arguably the largest destination for digital file output, the web, is almost not color managed. sRGB remains king unfortunately. It could be so much better if everybody used Safari or Firefox, but that clearly is not the case yet.
- And standardize 16 bit formats on the widest gamut supported by whatever you're doing with it? - ProPhoto for editing, and maybe whatever gamut is recommended by other software or hardware vendors for special purposes...
Yes, if you go 16 bits, there is no point not doing prophotoRGB.
Personally, all my web photos are presented through Flash, which supports AdobeRGB even if the browser proper does not. So I don't have legacy browsers to worry about myself.
Flash only supports non-sRGB images if you have enabled it yourself. NONE of the included flash templates in Lightroom for example enable it.
that IE was the last browser to be upgraded for colorspace support (ie9)
AFAIK (I don't do windows, so I have not tested IE9 myself), IE 9 still is not color managed. The only thing it does is when it encounters a jpeg with a ICC profile different than sRGB is translate it to sRGB and send that to the monitor without using the monitor profile. That is not color management at all. It is rather useless and completely contrary to what Microsoft themselves said many years ago well behaved browsers should do. It is also contrary to all of Windows 7 included utilities for image display. Really weird! Wide gamut displays are becoming more and more prevalent and this is backwards. Even if IE9 does this halfassed color transform, you can still not standardize on adobeRGB as it will take years for IE versions to really switch over. Many people still use IE6 and only recently has my website's access switched over to mostly IE8. Don't hold your breath for this.
Amazingly, in 2010, the only correctly color managed browser on windows is still Safari as Firefox doesn't support v4 icc monitor profiles and IE9 doesn't color manage at all except for translating between spaces to sRGB which is not very useful. Chrome can be made to color manage on windows apparently with a command line switch. On Macs the situation is better since Safari, Chrome (only correctly on 10.6) and Firefox (only with v2 ICC monitor profiles) all color manage. However, on mobile platforms, not a single browser color manages!

Color Spaces And Virtual Copies

If you make a virtual copy and then change the color space in the original, does the virtual copy retain the color space that was set at time of it's creation or is it changed to match the new color space of the original?
Jim

The original is a PSD file. My concern is that the virtual copy would not be updated to reflect the change in the PSD file color space when it comes time to print from the virtual copy so the image will be cropped correctly.
What brought this about is I have some grayscale images which were saved as PSD files in the ProPhoto color space and I made virtual copies with crop settings for some of them. I recently read that the Epson Advanced Black and White mode expects to see the data in the sRGB color space for best results. So I went back to the grayscale files and changed the color space to sRGB. Now I wonder if when I select one of those virtual copies, is it going to be sent to the printer tagged with sRGB or ProPhoto?
Sorry I wasn't clearer before.
Jim

Watermark, color space, and transparency problem

I'm having a problem with inserting a watermark image into my pdfs.
I created the watermark image in Photoshop. It is 8-bit gray with a transparent background. I saved it as a pdf (pdf 1.4 to allow transparency).
The main pdfs (to be watermarked) are created through a seperate process (they are scans of old book pages). The pdfs are produced from 8-bit gray tiff images, but I cannot determine what color space the these pdfs are.
To the problem: in Acrobat 9, when I insert the watermark above, all of the blacks on the page shift to grey, as if the opacity was shifted lower. The opacity is set to 100%, so this should not be a problem! The watermark does have a transparent background, though.
Since this seems to be a color space conflict, if I save the watermark PDF in CYMK or RGB, it does not cause the tonal shift (blacks remain true), but the watermark now has an opaque background. I need it to be transparent, as the background of the files to be watermarked are not tonally consistent (old discolored paper).
I guess these are my questions:
(1) Is there any way to determine the color space of a PDF? File->Properties does not list color space.
(2) Why does the watermark PDF, saved in CYMK or RGB, not allow a transparent background? Is this an Acrobat issue or color space?
(3) Does anyone have an idea on how to solve this? :)
Thanks a bunch.

First, I have 2 questions: 1) How do the color and watermark background look when you have Advanced > Print Production > Output Preview open? 2) What version of Acrobat are you working in?
The most common reason that people see an almost "washed out" appearance (or looking as though additional opacity is applied) is due to a bug in Acrobat 8. This was fixed in the 8.1 dot release. One way to determine if this is what you are running into is to view the file with the Output Preview dialog open. If it views correctly then, make sure you have the update installed.
I don't work with watermarks, but understanding the general concept of watermarks it seems like a reasonable guess that they would use overprinting. I'm wonder if this is what is affecting the display of them (non-transparent background) since Acrobat needs Overprint Preview ON to accurately display objects with overprint flags . As with above, turning on Output Preview will help you deduce if that's what is happening since Output Preview automatically enables Overprint Preview (which is off by default).
BTW, Preflight will let you know what color spaces are in PDF file. Run any Profile. In the results panel, drop down the "Overview" section. There you will find a color spaces section listing the color spaces of the document.

What size, resolution, color space and bit do I use for a book?

What size, resolution, and color space do I use for a iPhoto book?

At least 150 DPI - actually pixel requirements depend on the print image size (pring image size * 150 will give you the minimum pixel size you need) - size is determined by the book size and theme and page layout you select - color space should be sRGB - minimal editing and using iPhoto for editing produces the best results - for more information see this article
If a photo is the wrong ratio and you can not crop to work in most themes you can right click on the photo and fit to frame
LN

Color space and profiles clarifications

Does FCPX consider the embedded color profile of my clips ?
What is the default color space of FCPX projects ? (if any)
Can I select a specific color profile for my projects ?
My clips (according to after effect_cs6>interpret footage>color management) have this color profile embedded: HDTV (Rec. 709) Y'CbCr, but if I check out the same clip once transcoded to prores422 by FCPX there is no color profile anymore. What's goin on ?
I come from the photography world and we consider color profiles very important, what should I know about them when working with video ?
Thanks a lot

Thanks TOm, what do you mean internally ? In AE I can select a color space from a long list for my projects while FCPX discard the color profiles from the imported clips... how can it even manage them ?
Thanks

Paging space and SQL question

Can someone tell me why a SQL statement , ie.
select count(*) from some_table;
Would take up excessive paging space on my server.

thank you for your help rago, but I am afraid I am
more confused from your response.
is important investigate on the minfree/maxfree,
is the amount of the RAM dedicated at procs/file ,on unix
What do you mean here?contact your sysadmin,
this parameter, OS, indicate the amount of the RAM
to dedicate at proc and/or at files !
similar parameter
pghead
minperc/maxperc ...
investigate on the
pagefault/syscall/swap area/pagin/pagout/. . .
top
topas
admintool, ?,
vmtune
>
And are you suggesting I increase my Shared pool to
375MB ?this the limit suggest to increase the sga on your system,
if the system have 1500 MB of RAM ,
then max amount suggest for allocate the SGA is 75%,
1500 * 0.75 = 1125 for the 3 instance, on the machine !
1125 / 3 = 375 MB of RAM suggest to allocate.
I feel like , and my database is showing symptons of
the shared pool using paging space - so indicating
the shared pool is more than the available RAM.the question is:
1- if you have sufficient SGA, 1125 MB
but the OS dedicate to processes only
its 20% of the RAM -> 300 MB of RAM
the remaining is swap, that increase dayly !
2- if you have insufficient sga, the sga
swap continuously , with high page fault.
rago pasquale

How to solve the error message Podcast cover art must be at least 1400 X 1400 pixel JPG or PNG, in RGB color space, and hosted on a server that allows HTTP head requests."

please help!! I've been trying to solve this error message for hours
the feed url is http://feeds.feedburner.com/goodstewards
the artwork url is http://www.goodstewards.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/logo.jpg
this is a wordpress domain that i am using with feedburner

"Your Blogger feed has no 'itunes' tags and is lacking the 'iTunes declaration' in the second line, so you have no image as far as the Store is concerned. You need to set Blogger to provide an itunes-compliant feed."
So, how do I set Blogger to do that? I was Googling for the answer, but nothing. I have "Allow Blog Feed" set to full and Title Links and Enclosure Links enabled.
"Your Feedburner feed link goes to a text page containing the code of a feed - this feed does have the 'itunes:...' tags. However in both feeds you are using Google Drive as a server for the image and media files and the URLs are prefaced with https (encrypted connection) - this may work in the Store but it is inadvisable and your URLs should begin with http."
Yeah, I couldn't think of another way to get you straight to the actual XML file. I guess what you are saying is that Google Drive does not have an appropriate server, which is why it gives https instead of http as a head.

Color space and preview mode for mobile devices?

I want to create artwork that will be exported directly for mobile devices such as Androids and also that will be imported into Flash to create interactive content.
1. Is sRGB the best workspace for mobile devices?
2. I can use view > pixel preview to see what artwork will look like in a browser, though what about for a mobile device such as an Android?
Thanks.

anyone on this one?
Thanks.

Color mode and resolution questions

I'm going to work on a composition that will include made different photos. I'm not sure how it will be printed, CMYK or RGB. Without know for sure:
1. Should each individual photo file be set to RGB or CMYK?
2. How much of an affect will it have on the quality of an image if it is changed from RGB to CMYK or the other way around after it has been worked on?
3. I need to request photos from others to be included in this piece. Does the physical size of each photo matter as long as the photos are 150 or 200dpi? Should I request specific sizes or just photos with specific resolutions?
Thanks in advance!

1. rgb
2. effect
3. resolution

The availability of color space in RAW, TIFF and JPEG files

This is useful if your new to DSLR photography.
This is Nikon response on my question in the discussion: View photo metadata
I'm assuming that you know that Adobe RGB shows about 50% and sRGB 35% of CIELAB color space.
In a DSLR camera like the Nikon D800 you can select a color space (Adobe RGB or sRGB) in the shooting menu.
In Adobe Lightroom 4.3 the RAW metadata shows no color space info. Therefore I asked why not?
In the (Dutch) Nikon D800 manual on page 84 (about RAW) and 274 (about color space) and Nikon FAQ website there is no descripton about the color space availability/behavior in RAW, JPEG and TIFF files.
In the book "Mastering the Nikon D800 by Darrel Young" on page 125 - 126 is written: "If you shoot in RAW format a lot, you may want to consider using Adobe RGB....."
All experts on this forum answered: color space does not apply/affect the RAW data file or RAW files have no color space.
The respone of Nikon Europe Support (Robert Vermeulen) was: In Nikon D800 NEF RAW files both color spaces (Adobe RGB and sRGB) are always physically available. In JPEG and TIFF files only the in the shooting menu selected color space is physically available. So the forum experts gave the correct answer!
Of course you can convert afterwards a JPEG or TIFF file with sRGB color space to Adobe RGB but you don't get more colors.
When you install the Microsoft Camera Codec Pack or FastPictureViewer Codec Pack they only show color space metadata for JPEG and TIFF files and nothing for RAW because color space "doesn't exist". I thought the codec packs removed the color space metadata for my RAW files.
Adobe Lightroom also can not show color space for RAW files because that "doesn't exist".

Van-Paul wrote:
The respone of Nikon Europe Support (Robert Vermeulen) was: In Nikon D800 NEF RAW files both color spaces (Adobe RGB and sRGB) are physically available. In JPEG and TIFF files only the in the shooting menu selected color space is physically available.
I still think this is an evasive answer that doesn't really pinpoint the exact chain of events that take place. They are:
1. The raw file contains the naked data captured by the sensor. This is just a very dark grayscale image.
2. In the raw converter it is encoded into a working color space to process the information. In Lightroom this is known as "Melissa RGB", or linear gamma Prophoto. It is also demosaiced to bring back the color information.
3. From Lightroom it can be exported to one of the familiar color spaces like sRGB or Adobe RGB. This is, in principle at least, a normal profile conversion.
These three steps are what the camera does to produce a jpeg. So the basic steps are the same, the camera is just doing it automatically (and usually butchering the image in the process...).
This Darrell Young is, I'm sure, an excellent photographer, but in this he is seriously confused and just propagating a common myth. Anyway, thanks for bringing up this discussion, hope you didn't object too much to the tone of the answers... Our only concern here was to get this right and with no room for misunderstanding.

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Color space, gamma, and code value range data

Greetings!
I'm getting close to submitting my film for professional DCP creation. It's a ProRes 422 4096 by 1716, 2.39 - 1 file, created as a "master file" in a Premiere Pro CC export (the sequence being an "online" of sorts, built from SpeedGrade color-corrected DPX files).
The Guidelines for "Digital Cinema Source Delivery" require me to provide information about Color Space, Gamma, and Code Value Range Information (head vs full). Specifically, an order form asks for TRT, Color-Space, and Full or Head.
This is simply all Greek to me. I know my film looks gorgeous, and the rest of what I've told you, but that's the limit of my experience.
Can someone help me out? Specifics are preferred to broad strokes. Many thanks in advance.

This is probably too late now for you anyway but here is some extra information:
The "Digital Source Master" is the video footage before any D-Cinema formatting or encoding has been done.
It can be literally anything. The DCI specification did not specify this.
They did however specify exactly what the transcoded verison has to look like. The "D-Cinema Distribution Master" (16bit TIFF, XYZ)
So in other words, you need to tell your service provider:
The resolution, fileformat, frame rate and especially the colourspace that you used.
For example r709 for HD or any other RGB colourspace with applied gamma value (2.3 for example).

Do I need to harmonize color space between LR and other photo editing programs.

I perform the majority of my editing work in Lightroom. However, I also use some 3rd party applications (e.g. Nik, OnOne, etc.) in addition to Photoshop for special editing, etc. I've noticed that the default color space for each of these applications is different. Some default to Adobe RGBb, other sRGB and still others Pro Photo RGB. Should I be using the same color space and bit depth across all of these programs? When I export from LR, should that color space be the same as everything else? I have noticed that when I export some images and take them to a retail store based print service that the colors appear dull and drab. I believe that is because those mass producing print services don't read the color space in the JPEG correctly. Does any of this make sense, or am I way off? Thanks for everyone's input and time.

For your editing workflow, best is to keep the image in the same color space at all time. For final export you should convert to desiered space... for example sRGB for web, adobeRGB for print etc.

Color space and compression question.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for