Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alison J, Jun 13, 2009.

  1. Alison J

    Alison J Guest

    Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.

    I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.

    Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    a card.

    Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    other term which I can use for a search?

    Thank you.
    AJ

    PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    these are probably low spec but how low?
    Alison J, Jun 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alison J

    John Navas Guest

    On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:27:52 +0100, Alison J <> wrote in
    <2.highwinds-media.com>:

    >Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    >I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    >digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.


    When you use URL redirection without preview you'll lose much of your
    audience, since that's how spammers and scammers work. Instead:
    <http://preview.tinyurl.com/kshygw>

    >Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    >"pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    >a card.
    >
    >Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    >other term which I can use for a search?


    Try "pinhole camera"

    >PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    >quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    >typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    >these are probably low spec but how low?


    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera>

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alison J

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > When you use URL redirection without preview you'll lose much of your
    > audience, since that's how spammers and scammers work. Instead:
    > <http://preview.tinyurl.com/kshygw>


    or just use the original url. if it's properly delimited with angle
    brackets, it can span multiple lines and remain clickable.
    nospam, Jun 13, 2009
    #3
  4. Alison J

    Matt Ion Guest

    Alison J wrote:
    > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.
    >
    > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > a card.
    >
    > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > other term which I can use for a search?
    >
    > Thank you.
    > AJ
    >
    > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    > these are probably low spec but how low?


    You can search on "pinhole camera", as Navas suggests (and in fact, as
    is suggested by the title of the page you linked to), or you can add
    "CCTV" to your original search: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cctv pinhole lens
    Matt Ion, Jun 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Alison J

    daveFaktor Guest

    Alison J wrote:
    > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.
    >
    > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > a card.
    >
    > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > other term which I can use for a search?
    >
    > Thank you.
    > AJ
    >
    > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    > these are probably low spec but how low?


    The camera is known as : "Camera Obscura" Not sure it that's spelt
    correctly but it sound right.
    daveFaktor, Jun 13, 2009
    #5
  6. Alison J

    PatM Guest

    On Jun 13, 10:27 am, Alison J <> wrote:
    > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > digital camera units lie this:  http://tr.im/onwK.
    >
    > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > a card.
    >
    > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > other term which I can use for a search?
    >
    > Thank you.
    > AJ
    >
    > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > quality and specification of these lenses.  (Usual angle of view,
    > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.)  I can guess
    > these are probably low spec but how low?


    You are hurting my brain, but IIRC that type of lens is called a
    "Pancake Lens".
    PatM, Jun 14, 2009
    #6
  7. Alison J

    Matt Ion Guest

    daveFaktor wrote:
    > Alison J wrote:
    >> Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >>
    >> I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    >> digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.
    >>
    >> Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for "pinhole
    >> lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in a card.
    >>
    >> Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some other
    >> term which I can use for a search?
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >> AJ
    >>
    >> PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    >> quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    >> typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    >> these are probably low spec but how low?

    >
    > The camera is known as : "Camera Obscura" Not sure it that's spelt
    > correctly but it sound right.


    That is spelled correctly, but that's not what he's talking about.
    That's what his searches keep finding, it's not what he's looking for.
    Matt Ion, Jun 14, 2009
    #7
  8. Alison J

    dj_nme Guest

    Alison J wrote:
    > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.
    >
    > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > a card.


    That's called "'pinhole lens" because the hole the video camera needs
    for it's lens to poke through is very small, it looks a bit like a
    pinhole and can sometimes be concealed behind a pop-rivet or what looks
    like a hole left by a missing srew.

    > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > other term which I can use for a search?


    The lens could perhaps be better described as an "afocal lens", because
    everyting appears to be in focus (or at least equally blurred) and thus
    does not need to be focused during installation.

    > Thank you.
    > AJ
    >
    > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    > these are probably low spec but how low?
    dj_nme, Jun 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Alison J

    PatM Guest

    On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, PatM <> wrote:
    > On Jun 13, 10:27 am, Alison J <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.

    >
    > > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > > digital camera units lie this:  http://tr.im/onwK.

    >
    > > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > > a card.

    >
    > > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > > other term which I can use for a search?

    >
    > > Thank you.
    > > AJ

    >
    > > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > > quality and specification of these lenses.  (Usual angle of view,
    > > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.)  I can guess
    > > these are probably low spec but how low?

    >
    > You are hurting my brain, but IIRC that type of lens is called a
    > "Pancake Lens".


    Here is the DSLR version of a pancake lens, which they say in
    knicknamed a pin lens:
    http://www.loreo.com/pages/products/loreo_lenscap.html

    It might be what you are looking for.
    PatM, Jun 14, 2009
    #9
  10. Alison J

    Bob Larter Guest

    The Correction Police wrote:
    > they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
    > tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
    > things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Jun 14, 2009
    #10
  11. Alison J

    John Navas Guest

    On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:22:39 -0400, nospam <> wrote
    in <130620091222391744%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> When you use URL redirection without preview you'll lose much of your
    >> audience, since that's how spammers and scammers work. Instead:
    >> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/kshygw>

    >
    >or just use the original url. if it's properly delimited with angle
    >brackets, it can span multiple lines and remain clickable.


    Not necessarily -- it will still be broken in many news clients.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Alison J

    John Navas Guest

    On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:45:45 -0500, The Correction Police
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >Segue to r.p.d.: It is far, far, by far, easier to get a perfect figure on
    >a smaller lens than any larger one. The same holds true for all camera
    >lenses. This is precisely why larger diameter camera lenses will invariably
    >perform their worst at widest apertures. It is impossible for them to
    >figure glass that large to the proper curvatures, at any
    >consumer-acceptable costs that is. With smaller camera lenses this is
    >wholly possible, easily accomplished minute-by-minute, camera-by-camera.


    While most relatively large lenses aren't at their best wide open, the
    better ones are quite close, with superb optical quality, and at their
    best closed down by only 2-3 stops, which contradicts your claim. And
    their worst performance may well be stopped all the way down due to
    diffraction.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Alison J

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> When you use URL redirection without preview you'll lose much of your
    > >> audience, since that's how spammers and scammers work. Instead:
    > >> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/kshygw>

    > >
    > >or just use the original url. if it's properly delimited with angle
    > >brackets, it can span multiple lines and remain clickable.

    >
    > Not necessarily -- it will still be broken in many news clients.


    then the news client is broken. this is 2009, it's time to update.

    plus those services don't necessarily maintain the url reference
    forever and if someone finds the post on google groups some time in the
    future, the link will be dead and they'll have no way to load the page.
    nospam, Jun 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Alison J

    John Navas Guest

    On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:09:22 -0400, nospam <> wrote
    in <140620091109226249%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> When you use URL redirection without preview you'll lose much of your
    >> >> audience, since that's how spammers and scammers work. Instead:
    >> >> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/kshygw>
    >> >
    >> >or just use the original url. if it's properly delimited with angle
    >> >brackets, it can span multiple lines and remain clickable.

    >>
    >> Not necessarily -- it will still be broken in many news clients.

    >
    >then the news client is broken. ...


    [shrug]

    I deal with the world as it is, not what I'd like it to me,
    but as always, YMMV.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 14, 2009
    #14
  15. Alison J

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> >or just use the original url. if it's properly delimited with angle
    > >> >brackets, it can span multiple lines and remain clickable.
    > >>
    > >> Not necessarily -- it will still be broken in many news clients.

    > >
    > >then the news client is broken. ...

    >
    > [shrug]
    >
    > I deal with the world as it is, not what I'd like it to me,
    > but as always, YMMV.


    translated: i'm stuck using primitive software and refuse to upgrade.
    ymmv.
    nospam, Jun 14, 2009
    #15
  16. Alison J

    Paul Furman Guest

    Alison J wrote:
    > Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >
    > I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    > digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.


    http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=spy camera lens
    It's inherently going to be a very small low resolution camera requiring
    bright light to form an image through a tiny hole. Tiny hole means tiny
    amount of light. Even if you could focus such a lens on the sensor of a
    high performance camera, diffraction would limit resolution severely.
    Tru pinhole photography requires very long exposures due to the tiny
    amount of light passing.

    This one for example:
    http://www.spyville.com/3213ccdbwcam.html
    $69.99
    1/3" CCD Image Sensor (4.8mm x 3.6mm, the very smallest)
    512 x 492 pixels
    Min Illumination: 0.1 Lux
    Lens Pin Hole: 5.5mm, f/3.5
    Size: 32mm x 32mm

    Probably a clear glass/plastic cover, an open pinhole would let dust in.
    The diagonal of that sensor is 6mm so the 5.5mm lens is a normal lens,
    with a field of view comparable to a 50mm lens on a 35mm format camera.
    The aperture of f/3.5 means 5.5/3.5 = 1.6mm diameter opening. That's
    probably too big for an actual pinhole so perhaps there is an actual
    lens in there. If so, it's probably nothing fancy because diffraction
    will wipe out most of the detail anyways. It wouldn't be worth putting a
    better sensor in there either.

    I have a pancake lens for 35mm format, the opening is 16mm dia. which is
    45mm f/2.8 capable of very high resolution images in low light.



    > Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    > "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    > a card.
    >
    > Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    > other term which I can use for a search?
    >
    > Thank you.
    > AJ
    >
    > PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    > quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    > typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    > these are probably low spec but how low?



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jun 14, 2009
    #16
  17. Alison J

    Paul Furman Guest

    oh my [THE P&S TROLL] wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> Alison J wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
    >>>
    >>> I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
    >>> digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.

    >> http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=spy camera lens
    >> It's inherently going to be a very small low resolution camera requiring
    >> bright light to form an image through a tiny hole. Tiny hole means tiny
    >> amount of light. Even if you could focus such a lens on the sensor of a
    >> high performance camera, diffraction would limit resolution severely.
    >> Tru pinhole photography requires very long exposures due to the tiny
    >> amount of light passing.
    >>
    >> This one for example:
    >> http://www.spyville.com/3213ccdbwcam.html
    >> $69.99
    >> 1/3" CCD Image Sensor (4.8mm x 3.6mm, the very smallest)
    >> 512 x 492 pixels
    >> Min Illumination: 0.1 Lux
    >> Lens Pin Hole: 5.5mm, f/3.5
    >> Size: 32mm x 32mm
    >>
    >> Probably a clear glass/plastic cover, an open pinhole would let dust in.
    >> The diagonal of that sensor is 6mm so the 5.5mm lens is a normal lens,
    >> with a field of view comparable to a 50mm lens on a 35mm format camera.
    >> The aperture of f/3.5 means 5.5/3.5 = 1.6mm diameter opening. That's
    >> probably too big for an actual pinhole so perhaps there is an actual
    >> lens in there. If so, it's probably nothing fancy because diffraction
    >> will wipe out most of the detail anyways. It wouldn't be worth putting a
    >> better sensor in there either.
    >>
    >> I have a pancake lens for 35mm format, the opening is 16mm dia. which is
    >> 45mm f/2.8 capable of very high resolution images in low light.

    >
    > Go study up on "diffraction limits" of microscope objectives, maybe you'll
    > really figure it out someday.


    Go to hell, I was in the ballpark.

    And I doubt there are any infinity focus microscope lenses with a 1.5mm
    dia. front element <g> so you haven't contributed anything here but
    bile, as always.

    While it may be technically possible to get more resolution from such a
    tiny lens (I'd estimate 2MP), it's certainly not common. I challenge you
    to find anything with a 1.5mm front opening that captures more than 640
    pixels wide (1/3 of a megapixel) if even that. Go up to a 6mm opening
    (1/4 inch) & you can do a lot better.

    This place lists a 2.6mm diagonal sensor lens that does about 100 lppmm
    but with a sensor that's only 2mm wide, that's not much resolution:
    http://www.enplas.co.jp/english/business/opto/product/iop_list.html
    It's designed for CIF (352×288 pixels - 1/10th of a megapixel) and would
    have a 0.5mm dia. aperture at f/2.8.

    They also list a 1.5mm aperture lens 'for Mega" presumably meaning a 1
    megapixel sensor 4.8mm wide which is perhaps just barely possible at 80
    lppmm.


    > Thanks for playing. Now go educate yourself some more so you don't appear
    > so foolish the next time.
    >
    >>
    >>> Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
    >>> "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
    >>> a card.
    >>>
    >>> Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
    >>> other term which I can use for a search?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you.
    >>> AJ
    >>>
    >>> PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
    >>> quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
    >>> typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
    >>> these are probably low spec but how low?



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jun 15, 2009
    #17
  18. Alison J

    Bob Larter Guest

    The Correction Police wrote:
    > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:56:58 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The Correction Police wrote:
    >>> they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
    >>> tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
    >>> things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.

    >> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!

    >
    > Oh ye of such vast ignorance, with an attention-deficit deeper than the
    > Mariana Trench. Google for laser pot mod Some people adjust their's
    > higher, to 150mW output, but I feel that that will shorten their life
    > greatly. I do have one set that high, just for the life-expectancy
    > experiment. It readily ignites a phosphorous match in under a second. It's
    > still working two months later, but for how long. Granted it is only used
    > intermittently.
    >
    > The ones I buy direct from China are actually $8 each, shipping incl., (not
    > $10, but some people can't get them that inexpensive), all easily adjusted
    > for a 75mW output. Their heat-sink is more than adequate to be tuned that
    > high. The emergent beam of light clearly visible in a sunlit room after the
    > exceptionally simple modification.


    This is a complete & utter load of bullshit. Cheap Chinese laser
    pointers do not use >75mW rated laser diodes. Attempting to put that
    much power through one will kill it stone dead instantly. You obviously
    don't have the faintest idea how to measure the output of a laser.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Jun 15, 2009
    #18
  19. Alison J

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 14, 1:45 am, The Correction Police <>
    wrote:

    >Anton van Leeuwenhoek would also disagree with you, when
    > he was able to obtain sharp magnifications up to 500x by the use of only
    > one of these miniature lenses, hand-ground. This also happening over 350
    > years ago. Much has changed and improved since then.


    Leeuwenhoek microscopes (on hand, few that there are) went up to about
    266x. It is theorized he had them up to 500x. In addition, it is
    very possible his lenses were ground aspherical, unlike small
    spherical lenses you can buy today so the correction across the field
    with his would have been superior. Which is how he was able to
    observe small things in detail and even bacteria and detect Brownian
    motion, while those using compound microscopes with spherical lenses
    had no hope of seeing things in that detail, in those days.
    Rich, Jun 15, 2009
    #19
  20. Alison J

    Bob Larter Guest

    The Correction Police wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:05:22 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The Correction Police wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:56:58 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The Correction Police wrote:
    >>>>> they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
    >>>>> tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
    >>>>> things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.
    >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
    >>> Oh ye of such vast ignorance, with an attention-deficit deeper than the
    >>> Mariana Trench. Google for laser pot mod Some people adjust their's
    >>> higher, to 150mW output, but I feel that that will shorten their life
    >>> greatly. I do have one set that high, just for the life-expectancy
    >>> experiment. It readily ignites a phosphorous match in under a second. It's
    >>> still working two months later, but for how long. Granted it is only used
    >>> intermittently.
    >>>
    >>> The ones I buy direct from China are actually $8 each, shipping incl., (not
    >>> $10, but some people can't get them that inexpensive), all easily adjusted
    >>> for a 75mW output. Their heat-sink is more than adequate to be tuned that
    >>> high. The emergent beam of light clearly visible in a sunlit room after the
    >>> exceptionally simple modification.

    >> This is a complete & utter load of bullshit. Cheap Chinese laser
    >> pointers do not use >75mW rated laser diodes. Attempting to put that
    >> much power through one will kill it stone dead instantly. You obviously
    >> don't have the faintest idea how to measure the output of a laser.

    >
    > I built my own power-meter from one of the better DIY methods (uses an
    > inexpensive IR thermometer and an easy to fabricate sensor, in a sealed
    > environment). It's accurate to within 5%. Good enough for what I need it
    > for.


    Rubbish. You're making the whole thing up.



    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Jun 16, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BIGL
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    442
    Pug Fugley
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. NW Technicals

    How to Covert Linksys WRTP54G router into Access Point

    NW Technicals, Aug 13, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,290
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Aug 14, 2006
  3. John

    Hardware to covert ...

    John, Aug 2, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    419
    thanatoid
    Aug 3, 2006
  4. Dribbler

    Covert an act file help please?

    Dribbler, Feb 27, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    631
    Whiskers
    Feb 27, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    755
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page