Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: 4/3rds and movement

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    4/3rds and movement

    Would a tilt lens be going against the telecentric "requirements" of the 4/3rds (and /or the M4/3rds)?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    The simple answer would seem to be yes.

    However, if an image is to be focussed on the sensor, presumably some of the rays can't be telecentric - if this means all rays are parallel and at right angles to the sensor.

    I'm not too sure just how absolute the telecentricity is, and if all lens makers adhere strictly to the guidelines.

    So, it might be possible.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    This whole argument advanced by the 4/3rds on telecentricity, in practical terms, seems bogus to me.

    All those who are using movements with (whatever) lenses to capture their images should not be doing that at all with a digital sensor if 4/3rds and telecentricity are to be believed.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    This whole argument advanced by the 4/3rds on telecentricity, in practical terms, seems bogus to me.
    HI Vivek - I don't think it's bogus, and in practical terms I think the quality of the Zuiko 4:3 lenses speak for themselves - even the cheap ones can be shot wide open at all focal lengths without concern . . .not something that you can say about any other manufacturer's lenses.

    Worth noting that although Sigma and others make lenses for 4:3, I don't think they conform to the telecentricity rules that Olympus set themselves - I think that explains why, for instance, Sigma and Leica have produced 4:3 lenses faster than f2, whereas Olympus haven't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    All those who are using movements with (whatever) lenses to capture their images should not be doing that at all with a digital sensor if 4/3rds and telecentricity are to be believed.
    Just because obeying the laws of telecentricity would seem to produce great lenses, doesn't imply the opposite (that not obeying the rules produces bad ones).

    Just this guy you know

  5. #5
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    with the current state of microlens technology i dont think there is any doubt that the attributes of 'telecentric lenses' are less of a requirement.

    Problem is if they changed something tomorrow, not all FT sensors are new, so it will take some time for older designs to be phased out allowing newer smaller lenses.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Well, I think what Jono said is quite valid. The telecentric requirement would bring out the best in all digital sensors.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    well here is what Ogawa Haruo says in an interview with DCW, a translation can be found at the link below

    http://fourthirdsphoto.com/micro43/04.php

    "OGAWA:“Certainly, it may turn out in future that telecentricity is not required so much as it is today. But at present, technological development hasn’t progressed to that point, so we continue to believe that telecentricity is important. Telecentricity in the 4/3 system does not exist merely as numbers sought in lens design, but represent a common consciousness among the manufacturers participating in the 4/3 consortium. We don’t know what the future may hold, but it doesn’t make sense to make lenses for use only in cameras that use a certain kind of sensor, so for the present we continue to design lenses with an important emphasis placed on telecentricity."

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Thanks for the additional info, Riley.

    I am thinking about making a T/S adapter to use a few lenses on the M4/3rds.
    I have to wait till I get the G1 first.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    welcome Vivek
    I tend to read more into these interviews than is actually said, and I got the feeling coming away from this one, that Olympus is beholding to other FT participants and older technology. On reflection I think the telecentric requirement will just become less, more in some lenses than in others.

    Its no bad thing if they hang onto it, in my judgement it gives them a get out of jail card for the future, that of increasing sensor size.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post

    Its no bad thing if they hang onto it, in my judgement it gives them a get out of jail card for the future, that of increasing sensor size.
    HI Riley
    My feelings exactly.
    Vivek - I'll be interested to see how you get on with the G1. I think mine might have to wait a little while!

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    thanks Jono
    when i first coined that over at the darkside it caused a hell of a ruckus...

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    thanks Jono
    when i first coined that over at the darkside it caused a hell of a ruckus...


    Mind you - I think it inconceivable that they'll increase sensor size - why take away the single competitive advantage (good small lenses) that they seem to have!

    I'm not convinced by the 'full frame will win' argument, because, if it's that much better, then I think that those actually wanting it would prefer the M format (you know bigger than full frame).

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    inconceivable or not, ideally the lens sizes wouldnt change, a sensor increase would have to be within the scope that lenses would allow, while being large enough to make it worthwhile.

    i dont see FF 'winning' either, the dSLR world is APSC, but Olympus must keep pace with its sector of competition, as it stands now, they are always going to be short of that, and market position suffers accordingly.

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    inconceivable or not, ideally the lens sizes wouldnt change, a sensor increase would have to be within the scope that lenses would allow, while being large enough to make it worthwhile.

    i dont see FF 'winning' either, the dSLR world is APSC, but Olympus must keep pace with its sector of competition, as it stands now, they are always going to be short of that, and market position suffers accordingly.
    Ah - now I really disagree - and yours is a mantra that is parroted over and over again on the Olympus forum.

    Let's Look

    the Canon 50D sensor is 14.9mm high (pixel density 4.5)
    The Olympus E3 sensor is 13.5 mm high (pixel density 4.2)
    that is approximately 10% taller (of course they have a different aspect ratio).
    The problem right now is that the Panasonic sensors are not as good as the Canon sensors. However, the Olympus budget lenses are in a different league from the Canon ones.

    If a decent sensor was used in 4:3, then nobody, but nobody would be able to tell the difference in IQ, but if Olympus put bigger sensors in their bodies then you would immediately lose the real advantage they have in edge definition and vignetting, added to which they would still be using a poor sensor!

    What 4:3 needs is good quality sensors - their design is already streets ahead of the kludgy APS-c competition. Changing the design rather then sensor would lose them everything.

    Which would be sad (IMHO).

    Just this guy you know

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Jono, The pixel densities of 50D and the E3 based solely on the sensor area (and pixel count) are incorrect.

    The E3 pixel (light collecting surface) are larger (NMOS) than that of the corresponding 50D's (CMOS).

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jono, The pixel densities of 50D and the E3 based solely on the sensor area (and pixel count) are incorrect.

    The E3 pixel (light collecting surface) are larger (NMOS) than that of the corresponding 50D's (CMOS).
    Hi Vivek
    fine - I'm sure you're right - but it has no implications on my argument (I just put 'em in because they were there).

    Just this guy you know

  17. #17
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Ah - now I really disagree - and yours is a mantra that is parroted over and over again on the Olympus forum.

    Let's Look

    the Canon 50D sensor is 14.9mm high (pixel density 4.5)
    The Olympus E3 sensor is 13.5 mm high (pixel density 4.2)
    that is approximately 10% taller (of course they have a different aspect ratio).
    thats pretty far from the real size story though isnt it, when we go 12Mp and we will, we will be back over 50D density. Its the density thats killing us, pixel size affects noise and DR. It seems the Kodak sensors were larger at 243sqmm, right now we run 225sqmm, the Canon APSC is 100sqmm bigger at 328sqmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack
    The problem right now is that the Panasonic sensors are not as good as the Canon sensors. However, the Olympus budget lenses are in a different league from the Canon ones.
    if you thought we lost 2/3 stop iso to canon, that would be about right. Im not so sure panny sensors are weak, they just deliver what they can for their size. Noise on the same DoF looks about the same

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack
    If a decent sensor was used in 4:3, then nobody, but nobody would be able to tell the difference in IQ, but if Olympus put bigger sensors in their bodies then you would immediately lose the real advantage they have in edge definition and vignetting, added to which they would still be using a poor sensor!
    ok, lets say IQ is affected by a slightly larger sensor, you need to resolve how much you shoot wide open v/s the stop of better iso performance you would pick up. Vignetting is controlled from the diagonal, noise and DR are controlled by the area.

    Increase diagonal from 21.6mm to 25mm, thats a 15.7% increase
    Increase area from 225sqmm to 300 sqmm, thats a 33% increase
    As areas are squared, we have much more to gain than we would lose

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack
    What 4:3 needs is good quality sensors - their design is already streets ahead of the kludgy APS-c competition. Changing the design rather then sensor would lose them everything.

    Which would be sad (IMHO).
    it would actually be better still with a bigger sensor. The patent allows that 25mm diagonal is the maximum, thats a 20x15mm sensor with an area of 300sqmm. As Canon APSC is 328sqmm, the nMOS/pMOS configuration would allow for less wiring and hence more area for well sizes, we would actually be infront.

    so we could tackle DR and noise to comparable levels with APSC
    the OVF would be larger b/se of the larger sensor
    and the lens suite as you indicated is among the best
    whats not to like for 1/4 stop stopped down for vignetting
    (which can be eliminated incamera via software anyway) ?

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    I'm sorry Riley
    I hear the arguments, and I've seen them all before, and I think they universally add up to much less than a hill of beans.

    You can do as many percentages and diagonals and then apply areas to linear results as you like, but face it, the sensors are very nearly the same vertical height, and that is what one is normally taking pictures with:



    You are never going to convince me that increasing sensor size by that much is going to improve image quality noticeably when other things are equal.

    Anyway - the Canon has really good high iso, with a pixel density of 4.5, and the E3's is decidedly dodgy at a better pixel density of 4.2. It's the panasonic sensor which is the trouble NOT the 4:3 design.

    The G10 has a tiny sensor in comparison with a pixel density of 34 instead of 4, and people are being kind about it's high ISO performance.

    However - using full frame quite a bit (as I do). I realise how incredibly fast lens performance falls off at the edges, I'm quite certain that the Olympus wide angle lenses would NOT be okay using a larger image circle. (both the 9-18 and the 7-14 are starting to lose definition at the corners anyway.

    To be frank, I think that arguments to the effect that Olympus should abandon their frying pan and jump into everyone else's fire are a load of old cobblers

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    the determinant of well sizes aside, and that imposition on performance, ISO, DR etc, there is more to sensor size as a physical limit in play though Jono, there is the perception of sensor size.

    Olympus are losing money in the SLR div, sales are holding up only b/se they sell them very cheaply. If they sold for what they were worth volume would fall, and the tiny share they have already would shrink further to the 'inferior' APSC. Whatever they are doing at the moment isnt working, its as simple as that. as they say in the classics, people aren't buying it.

    As to vignetting etc, the larger the crop factor the less vignetting is as an issue, there is scant difference between 2x and 1.73x but a measley 1/4 of a stop. Opticly lens resolution would improve, as the MTF of 60/20 we use now would become a more ideal 45/15. The lenses would actually perform better by 33%.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    the determinant of well sizes aside, and that imposition on performance, ISO, DR etc, there is more to sensor size as a physical limit in play though Jono, there is the perception of sensor size.

    Olympus are losing money in the SLR div, sales are holding up only b/se they sell them very cheaply. If they sold for what they were worth volume would fall, and the tiny share they have already would shrink further to the 'inferior' APSC. Whatever they are doing at the moment isnt working, its as simple as that. as they say in the classics, people aren't buying it.
    Assuming you are right (I haven't a clue) I would say that is because they haven't got their marketing right in the larger world, and that their comparatively poor marketing would make matters even worse if they made their product like everyone else's.

    I simply don't believe that the success or failure of a mid market camera hinges on very marginal differences in ISO results possible between aps-c and 4:3. More to the point I simply don't believe that the general public has the faintest idea about these things. Most of the people on dpreview certainly don't!

    Lots of my friends have dSLR's these days, of various types - the vast majority of them really don't have any comparative information, nor could they care less. They bought their cameras based on what took their fancy when they were in Jessops - or what their mate told them, or which has the most pixels.

    They are also profoundly uncritical of the results they get - if the picture's good they like it (whether it's grainy or whatever). I suspect that they're right as well! (and good usually means that little Jimmy has a smile on his face)

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    As to vignetting etc, the larger the crop factor the less vignetting is as an issue, there is scant difference between 2x and 1.73x but a measley 1/4 of a stop. Opticly lens resolution would improve, as the MTF of 60/20 we use now would become a more ideal 45/15. The lenses would actually perform better by 33%.
    I'm sorry - figures again - but I'm extremely suspicious. What I KNOW is that I have NEVER had a good wide angle lens for either APS/c or full frame which weighed less than 900gm - most of them never get good even if you stop down, and by the time they've stopped having crap corners the middle's no good.

    I'm not worried about vignetting that much either - it's resolution at the edges and corners which bugs me.

    The rules of 4/3 and the diameter allowable aside, I can see absolutely clearly that if you put the magnificent 7-14 on a larger sensor it would be just as bad as all the rest. . . and so would the nice new 9-18.


    If you say to me:

    Actually, for people who read dpreview, soft corners and vignetting really don't matter a damn because the most important thing in the reviews is high ISO capabilty - therefore camera companies should sacrifice everything to the holy grail of high ISO

    Then I couldn't deny that would be a wise course if that was the 'real market'.

    But I'd think it really really sad to throw away their one advantage to become another pentax (without the nice primes). Definitely a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

    But if you tell me that the Zuiko lenses would perform just as well if you increased the sensor size by that much, then I'm sorry, you won't get me to agree!

    And if you tell me that mid and low range camera sales depend principally on the quality of the image then I can only laugh.

    Just this guy you know

  21. #21
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    well heres the thing, i use wides all the time so its not like i dont have an interest in UWA IQ, its how i make my living. The wider the lens the more acute the problem, but we are, as you point out, speaking of linear dimensions that are quite small.

    From the Kodak E1 sensor, which is nearly 20x15 anyway,

    whether we use it all or not, to 20x15 is an image circle increase of just 2.5mm on the image size of the old sensor, a radius out of 1.25mm. Jay Turberville tested several lenses and found them to exceed 40mm.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=27090223

    so ok, lets get away from vignetting and look at soft edges, assuming that this would be an issue, even without the best of microlenses, there are a number of ways to defeat it. either stop down, or limit the WA.

    If you look at the patent information, the image circle specification has a range between 21.2 (less than what we use now) and 25mm. What I am suggesting is actually within the specification, and isnt so darned far from the full size of the Kodak sensor.

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6910814

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post

    so ok, lets get away from vignetting and look at soft edges, assuming that this would be an issue, even without the best of microlenses, there are a number of ways to defeat it. either stop down, or limit the WA.
    this is the crunch - as I say, I do lots of landscape work with thin slivers of land at the bottom - if the corners and edges aren't sharp then it doesn't work.

    So I notice.

    Most lenses for APSC or Full frame (with one or two noticeable exceptions like the new Nikon 14-24) are not cured by stopping down . . and they aren't cured by zooming out either.

    The Olympus 7-14 just makes it at 7mm - it's much better at 8.

    But even if stopping down DID work (which it mostly doesn't) then that destroys the whole joy of the mid range olympus lenses, which is that you can shoot them wide open or stopped down at any focal length WITHOUT HAVING TO THINK ABOUT IT.

    It simply isn't true of any APSc wide angle lenses that I've tried - and boy I have tried a lot.

    but it begs the question - you're assuming that sales hinge on a stop or so of High ISO noise, and I simply don't believe it.

    Just this guy you know

  23. #23
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    on 1.73x the 7mm is 12mm EFL, at 8mm zoomed, its back to 14mm EFL
    so you reflash the firmware and have a stop in the body to limit the zoom. You lost nothing. BTW there is some softness and distortion wide open, even in the more heralded 11-22, which doesnt really get sharp until F4.5.

    as to marketing
    "but it begs the question - you're assuming that sales hinge on a stop or so of High ISO noise, and I simply don't believe it."

    once again, there is more to it than that. We are on the threshhold now with high Mp at 10.1Mp that compares to 50D in pixel density. Both have noise at base iso that isnt there in the 40D examples. When you speak about marketing a camera based on Mp (which i recognise is very true) we are on the limits of todays technology now, and we have less Mp by 50%.

    Perhaps like you i would prefer bigger wells on a 6Mp sensor, which on 20x15 the wells are the same size as 5D, but they wont ever be going back to that. We cannot offer the same Mp as APSC on a smaller sensor based on the same technology, it will always be a worse position.

    Bigger pixels give more DR, less noise, and we get a larger OVF to boot
    i better leave it at that, im hogging the thread a bit

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    the triumph of numbers over pragmatism!
    I agree to disagree, at least it's been civilized.

    All the best

    Just this guy you know

  25. #25
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    The strength with Four Thirds lenses is also their weakness. Because of 1) 4:3 aspect ratio, 2) Telecentric lens design, and 3) Large mount compared to sensor, we get the following attributes of the Four Thirds system: A) Excellent edge/corner sharpness, even in budget lenses; B) Low light falloff, even in fast lenses; and C) Larger and heavier lenses than we'd have if willing to give up on wide open corner/edge performance and light falloff.

    Since one of the major advantages of the Four Thirds system is size and weight, introducing a lens design requirement that adds significantly to size and weight is a major issue. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing, because the size/weight advantage is preserved (especially vs 35mm full frame) and the quality is very high, even with the kit lenses. However, I think they would have been better off offering more lenses that failed to meet these requirements. For example, the 25mm pancake seems to fail on telecentricity, but it fills a valuable spot in the lineup. Not every lens needs to have sharp corners and insignificant light falloff wide open.

    With m43, they are putting tons of emphasis on compact size. I hope they fully exploit this advantage, even if it means having some lenses that make similar compromises to those of the ZD 25/2.8.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 4/3rds and movement

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    The strength with Four Thirds lenses is also their weakness. Because of 1) 4:3 aspect ratio, 2) Telecentric lens design, and 3) Large mount compared to sensor, we get the following attributes of the Four Thirds system: A) Excellent edge/corner sharpness, even in budget lenses; B) Low light falloff, even in fast lenses; and C) Larger and heavier lenses than we'd have if willing to give up on wide open corner/edge performance and light falloff.

    Since one of the major advantages of the Four Thirds system is size and weight, introducing a lens design requirement that adds significantly to size and weight is a major issue. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing, because the size/weight advantage is preserved (especially vs 35mm full frame) and the quality is very high, even with the kit lenses. However, I think they would have been better off offering more lenses that failed to meet these requirements. For example, the 25mm pancake seems to fail on telecentricity, but it fills a valuable spot in the lineup. Not every lens needs to have sharp corners and insignificant light falloff wide open.
    HI Amin
    Perhaps you're right - but they have managed some very small lenses (the 14-42 springs to mind). I think one of the beauties is that you can use pretty much any lens without considering. Of course, a 50mm pancake is hardly likely to be used for corner to corner sharpness . . . its not bad though.

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •