The color of light, imagery and validity of perspective

Icebreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
4,998
Location
by the river
This post is broken up into five parts.

The Introduction

The Mildly entertaining, somewhat annoying "test"

The Opinionated Commentary

The Incomplete yet genuine, good faith attempt at an intellectually respectful revelation

The Question for the basis of discussion

______________________________

Introduction

Possibly the most important component of our flashlights and torches is the actual light that is thrust out of them. What that light does to illuminate its objective target in the way of returning an image to us is important enough to be the basis of many of our discussions. One of my favorite subjects to learn about is light itself. What creates it, how it acts and reacts, its intensity, its power and how it is defined are aspects of light that fascinate. Of great interest to me is the spectral components of a beam of light. The different frequencies or colors present in different light beam emissions can greatly effect the imagery or information returned to the user.


Here is a
mildly entertaining, somewhat annoying "test". The answers are provided for ease of reading.

1) Environment: Fair to poor office lighting.

Would light from a blue LED peaking near 470 nm help or hinder in reading small print?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some people report that it blurs the print and hurts their eyes, some report there is not much difference, still others report a significant increase in their ability to read small print. One legally blind individual reported being able to retain their job which required reading small print simply by employing the use of a blue LED torch. He could not perform this function without the aid of blue Inova even with powerful glasses.

2) Environment: Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Would light from red LEDs peaking near 625 nm spotting the target character help or hinder in defining the image of the target character?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some members of the audience will experience little effect in definition; others will notice a slight blurring; still others will notice some increase in definition. What most audience members will notice is a different definition rendition as well as a different depth rendition in comparison to everything else on the stage. These two differences highlight the target character and set that target character apart almost as much the obvious difference of the red color.

One individual reported that they were so visually impaired that they could barely navigate in low ambient light situations without the use of both a powerful blue light and a powerful red light used simultaneously. They designed and used a head mounted dual LED device to successfully satisfy this need.

3) Environment: Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a cyan LED peaking near 505 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report that they lose so much color rendition that they feel almost bewildered. Others report a preference for cyan in this environment due to its definition of target capability as well as its particular color rendition capability. With effort, individuals can train their eyes/vision processing to take advantage of the aspects some wavelengths afford.

4) Environment: Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a royal blue LED peaking near 455 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report a blurring effect; others nothing; others reported that it was pretty. One individual reported that he could read distant signs he could not possibly read without royal blue light returning the image. Other individuals substantiated this report with their own real world investigations.


5) Environment: Jewelry store, low to no lighting.

Which frequency of light is best for causing diamonds to fluoresce?

Answer:

380 nm. 395nm will work also. However not all diamonds fluoresce. Some diamonds fluoresce different colors. If a yellowish diamond fluoresces blue, the effect could be strong enough to mask the yellowish tint when viewed in a jewelry store's fluorescent lighting. You might be surprised by the diamond's true color when you look at it at home under different lighting. The reverse is true for diamonds that fluoresce yellow. They can appear more white under incandescent lights, but acquire a yellowish tint in ultraviolet light. A strong yellow fluorescence bring diamond prices down, sometimes quite a bit, since yellowish tinted diamonds are generally less desirable than whiter stones. A blue fluorescence can help increase the prices of diamonds with yellowish tones.


6) Environment: Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Which of these colors of light would be easiest to hide from the audience on non-target backgrounds; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

blue 470 nm.

7) Environment: Medical diagnosis.

Which color of light would be best for diagnosing subdermal vascular anomalies; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

red 625 nm. 660nm is used in oximetry. 910nm IR is used in tandem in oximeters for attaining a ratio of absorption differential between the two frequencies.



8) Environment: Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

What color of light is best for tracking blood?

Answer:

The discussion continues among folks all over the world in many different venues. Some individuals report blue works for it's absorption properties. Some individuals report that red works for its reflective properties. Some individuals report that a strong warm/white LED works very well while still others report that incandescent light is best for them.


9) Environment: World.

Which personal lighting tool is better for rendering diverse target images; LED or incandescent?

Answer:

It depends on the target and possibly more importantly it is dependent on the individual observer. All perspectives are valid.


Opinionated Commentary


Each individual has unique optical capabilities. Each individual has unique image processing capabilities. For a moment, couple all the above mentioned light frequencies and their different renditions of different targets with the fact that individuals see images differently. All those colors. All those targets. All those eyeballs. All those brains. One would think it would be a simple logical step forward to accept that one type of light is better for one person's interpretation of a target image and a different type of light is better for another person's interpretation of a target image. My observations indicate to me that it is in fact not such an easy logical step.

I think I may know why. It has to do with what is right before your eyes. We instinctively trust our vision for survival. What we see must be correct because we are seeing it. Now that might be considered to be empirical evidence. Add to that varying degrees of knowledge of light. From here the individual might submit that what works for them does so because of scientific fact. Since the preference is evidenced empirically and is supported by scientific fact, the preference might be considered to be an absolute. It's not.

This is the complicated part of the pot of ingredients that can produce enthusiastic discussions and sometimes those discussions can cook up to produce quite a spicy dish of conversational fare.

And there's more. One very interesting fellow has let me know (and I now agree with him) that people can train their eyes to use different types of light to enhance the information they receive from an image. Further he contends and I agree, that individuals can train their light processing capabilities and can even recalibrate their processors using different techniques not limited to but including simple concentration.

These words I'm using to attempt to make a point may or may not be of use. Let's try another question. Is a blue LED the best choice for reading a map? Why, of course not. The best light for reading a map would be incandescent. No wait. The best light would be warmish white LED outputting exactly 128 lux. Maybe not. Remember that legally blind fellow who's job depended on his ability to read small text and this task could only be accomplished by enhancing the target with a blue Inova? He doesn't care what color the interstate is. He just wants to know where I-40 West is. Now if he and I were in a "save the world" scenario and he was the guy that had to cut the correct wire on the bomb before the timer reached zero, I might be inclined to hand him an incandescent light for its color rendition capability. A better choice for me, if time allowed, would be to ask him which light he would prefer for the task at hand. In this case his opinion makes a world of difference to me.

Like many, I have certain lighting preferences for different tasks.

While night fishing I prefer to use a tiny LED torch to tie lures, a no-spill TIR LED torch to spot the fish the guy twenty feet from me just pulled on shore and a powerful incan torch to see if that's a small branch or large snake floating in the water. Not everyone will prefer my choices. Individuals see images differently and process those images differently. If a fellow tells me he has no problem identifying an un-moving, mostly submerged cotton-mouth water moccasin at 30 feet out using an LED flashlight I'm inclined to believe his choice is best for him despite my own personal empirical evidence or my somewhat limited grasp of the science of light.


Incomplete yet genuine, good faith attempt at an intellectually respectful revelation

a. The little "test" has an obvious, albeit poorly constructed, thread of logic that hopes to deliver an acceptable conclusion.

b. I want you to agree with me.

c.


Question for the basis of discussion

Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?


 
Last edited:
Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?

An excellent reference when called upon to answer those "which is better?" questions. Thanks for putting this all in one place.
 
My humble opinion is that most of what's presented by the OP can be condensed down into a single word; "expectations".

Our brains are wired to recognize what we are used to seeing so what we see is what we want to see based on how we've seen those things before in various contexts.
Basically, it's not what our eyes see, but how our brains interpret the input of our eyes. ("Who 'ya gonna' believe; me or your lyin' eyes?).

In other words, I'm not so sure that it's a physiological condition we're discussing as much as it is a mental condition.

Which brings us to CPF'ers in general, and by using deductive logic on my foregoing conclusions, it becomes quite clear that CPF'ers have a mental condition.

But we all knew that... :crackup:

Seriously, our expectations are what likely cause us to recognize things (or not) based on the context in which we expect those things to exist.
I think we can all remember a time when we ran into someone whom we knew from somewhere else but couldn't place who they were because of the different context in which we ran into them.

Looking at things in light conditions that are different from what we are used to can put things out of context to our expectations of what we "want" to see, so we may very well overlook things because the light puts them in a different context against the surroundings in which they exist.

So while I watch the endless arguments about which light is better and how incan is more "natural" (which it isn't), I have not only "opened my mind" to the nice, white beams of LED's nowadays (exemplified by the current crop of Q5's), I have actually gotten to the point where I now very much prefer them in all situations.
Basically, I have, I guess, retrained my brain to filter what I see at night under LED lighting and have no problem at all seeing anything. It's just a matter of "using the force" for you Star Wars fans.

One light I didn't have but thought I should because it's pretty much a "classic" now is a Surefire 6P "Original" incan.
So I bought one and took it out that night expecting to see the universe open before my very eyes. But all I saw was a dim, yellow beam that added nothing to my comprehension of the lit area. In fact, incans to me (now) all look like lights with used up batteries on the verge of going dead.
So now when I read about people in love with their incans, I have to admit that I personally just don't "get it".
One of my next light acquisitions will be a P60 LED drop-on for my "classic" 6P so I can turn it into a light that I'll actually want to use.

Good thread starter there, Icebreak. You seem to have a handle on the issue.
 
Thanks, KeyGrip. I'm hoping this discussion will be useful to many folks.

Zenster -

Expections/Conditions/Context/Physiology/Psychology/Training. ...Well done, sir. Well done indeed. I enjoyed that.

A little side-note question. How did you get CPF to play that WAV file of a drum riff with bass, tom, snare and cymbal right about the time I got to the laughing smiley. That was cool.

- Jeff
 
Last edited:
This seems like a good thought provoking thread. :thumbsup: I stated seems rather than being absolute about it because I do think the key here is about perception and opinion rather than cold objectivity.

We are motivated to see based on wants and needs. As already stated, the mind takes visual information and perceptions which it then processes. Do we have any idea just how capable we are of manipulating and filtering this input?!? :shrug:

Anyone who has taken a color image in PhotoShop and messed with it realizes that the digital image recorded has much greater depth and information than you can detect from a simple viewing of the image. Alter contrast, saturation, hue and any number of filters or tweaks and you can alter the image significantly and yet it is still based on recorded information captured by the initial image.

I have been looking into the issue of color and color perception and recently started trying to get a feel for the CRI aspect of light sources. Frankly, I have a light in process that is geared towards color rendition or color reproduction and due to selfish motivation and vested interests, I will keep some of my thoughts to myself at this point. Since these thoughts are nothing more than opinion , withholding them is probably doing you guys a favor, anyway! :eek:

One thing I have noticed though is that there seems to be an independence between a perceived tint from the light source VS its actual ability to give you color information. I believe CRI is based on black body emitters and if that is the case then they have an inherent edge over non black body light sources but none the less, you can have a high CRI source of light that has an obvious tint to it and yet the various colors can readily be identified and differentiated while viewed under its illumination. Anyone can put on some yellow, green or blue sunglasses and in no time adapt to this external filter and still perceive colors as well as "white". I put white in quotes because I don't consider it an absolute color in the context of color; that is to say red, blue, green, cyan, magenta etc....

Color is about differentiation whereas white is about integration. There are "true" colors as defined by their wave lengths. Their bands can be identified in a spectrum. White is the integration of these various bands and subject to subjectivity in definition and convention rather than hard objective identification.

I would submit that in most cases, our perception needs are based on acuity and the ability to differentiate among objects in our field of view. We process based on differences. A JPEG image has compression software that lumps similar bits of information together and replicates them as the same. I suspect our mind has really sophisticated compression algorithms and we lump bits together or completely ignore them based on our focus and interest at the time. We can use information bits of different color as well as variations in intensity as well as the perceived form or shape as represented by these bits to perceive what is out there. I suspect much can be learned about perception if one studies the means and methods of camouflage which is often based on color and shapes.

To use a simple example, if a flashlight allows me to perceive that there is a cat in my yard, in most cases that is sufficient information. I may not need to be able to identify what colors are present in its fur but if I want to compare it to a stored memory of my neighbor's tabby then reasonable color reproduction may come into play. There are some endeavors where some of us use flashlights where color reproduction is most significant. The often cited example here is that of the wiring harness or loom where the only means of identification is that of color itself. A good test on color reproduction or rendition is in viewing a white, gray or purple or orange wire. For me, the gray wire is the best one. Gray isn't in the spectrum or a "real" color to my way of thinking. I think if you can properly identify gray then the rest of the colors should be relatively easy to see.

I really think illumination falls under two categories, want and need, and these two categories may be in conflict with each other to some extent; I know they are for me. In my landscape lighting, I prefer the high color temperature and blue white washing over the plants VS a warm low color temperature which may well give better resolution to some of the features within the foliage. Some folks prefer green and blue lights in landscape purely for the effect. Some members of CPF are obsessed with "white light" and yet they wouldn't consider painting the walls of their home "white".

Is a flashlight doing the job for you? Well do you like what you see? Do you see what you need to see? Do you have enough information reflected back from the field of view?

Many people will spend hours in front of a mirror. They view and perceive their reflection. Is this the same perception that others will have when the people are viewed directly? When you use a flashlight, unless you point it directly into your eyes and fire it off, you are not viewing the flashlight beam but rather its reflection; back from objects it encounters. If you are looking for red objects then you need to send out red light and you also need to send out other colors to allow you to identify only those objects which are red.

If I look at a ball and tell you it's a bright cherry red, how do I know this. I assume I know this because I have memory of red that I use to compare to what I see from the ball. Now my memory is likely from seeing other reds under both sunlight as well as incandescent artificial sources? I have been now living in a house that is exclusively illuminated by LED's and most of them are pretty poor in CRI. I still see red but as time has passed, have I altered my memory of red and now base it on red as seen under LED to some extent? Here on Maui, we have great blue sky and most of my visual experience is under a wonderful spectrum of sunshine little impaired by atmospheric filtering. This is likely the strongest basis for contemporary color referencing but how often do we update our "color cards"? If my memory for color is as bad as my memory seems to be for everything else, I may be storing new cards often. Do folks with memory impairment like say Alzheimer's have trouble with color recognition?

If a person lives in a big city under smoggy skies and yellow incandescent lights at night, would they have a different set of memorized color cards than someone living out under the great open sky? Would a preference for a flashlight differ for a city dweller VS a country dweller as based on their local illumination experiences?

OK, enough of my rambling.... :nana:
 
This seems like a good thought provoking thread. :thumbsup: I stated seems rather than being absolute about it because I do think the key here is about perception and opinion rather than cold objectivity. .. snip ...
OK, enough of my rambling.... :nana:

Somehow, I feel that you and I may have taken the same college course at some point:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/evans_cave.htm :huh:

Clearly, what Plato's prisoners needed were... flashlights. ;)
 
Zenster,
Never encountered Plato's Cave and philosophy gave me a headache when I peeked in during college. :eek:

I do find it interesting to consider our personal basis for perception and how it might be personal more than say universal, in nature. "All the colors in the rainbow". Well are there colors not existing in the rainbow yet there none the less? Is the color wheel comprehensive of all colors we might experience or see? These are probably dumb questions but I know I have seen some colors in fish in the ocean here that I don't believe I have encountered on land and for me to name them would require approximation to a learned palate that itself is not very comprehensive. :thinking: :shrug:

Having an artificial source of light at our command, like a flashlight, allows us to view reflections from our surroundings which would not be available to our perceptions and investigations otherwise. With the advent of LED's we can efficiently introduce narrow bands of light which before required the inefficient filtering of broad spectrum originating from black body sources. Scientists, researchers, CSI and forensic investigators can paint a scene with various light sources and detect differences which are not present and distinguishable to the naked eye under a full spectrum of light. Upon recognition of a difference, they then can explore and attempt to identify what that difference might be.

It seems that in many cases where we seek to replicate "white light" we attempt to introduce artificial reflections from our surrounds which best duplicate the reflections we would have under normal sunlight. This allows us to evaluate the familiar based on familiar or learned.

In the case of scorpion hunters or the CSI guys, they may find more information by seeking reflections resulting from the introduction of UV to the scene.

Another aspect underlying our needs and wants in terms of artificial illumination or reflection gathering is that of mobility of we, the observer. If we are stationary, we needn't concern ourselves with illumination necessary in allowing us safe and controlled ingress and egress. A distant object will require an intense bath of light for reasonable amounts of reflections to reach us; we would require throw in the light.

"What's that over there?" Well if I have to answer that question without going over there to find out, I need one type of light source but if I can go over there and check it out, I might prefer a different light source completely. If that over there will remain an object of interest for some time and/or something about it is changing over time, we might even want to set up a light source near it and observe the reflections from it at some other and possibly distant position. The portability of a flashlight does not require that it remain in the hands of the porter.

The optimal location and shape of beam for illumination of an object or field of view can be a totally different location from that which is optimal to view the object or field.

I think most of us consider these different lights primarily, if not exclusively, as navigation lights which we keep in hand, under our direction, and seek to move about and identify that which would not be visible enough under ambient light. Certainly we need navigation lights but that does not limit the value and merit of portable illumination sources and in some cases we should consider the alternative of separating the locations of light source and position of view.

I think these comments are probably going too far off topic but in the vein of perceptions and the validity of them, one would presumably use whatever light one had on hand to its best deployment and if both light and observer are mobile then lighting and viewing the lit scene might require the consideration of location of both the outgoing stream of photons as well as where to position oneself for the reflected photons as they return for our observation. In previous threads of this nature, we have discussed the problem of backscatter for instance in the fog or underwater and how one can do better in perception if one is not in proximity of the source of light itself.

This thread starts with some questioning of using something more band specific and not necessarily full spectrum for gaining information. Underwater, red light is lost almost immediately as it is absorbed by the water itself. Many sea creatures are red in pigment because they then appear black or devoid of light under ambient conditions. An artificial source of light close to these creatures makes them stand out against their background as their red nature can be seen. There are objects and creatures which will fluoresce and if a royal blue or UV heavy source of light is brought to bear and in the absence of other light which would wash out this fluorescence, they can be viewed in greater contrast or distinct from their surrounds.

If something is normally, under ambient light, well hidden then using an abnormal light source may provide more information even though that which viewed doesn't look "normal".

Does normal vary from viewer to viewer? This has been discussed in the past as well. Are favorite colors possibly biased due to the individual's perception of that color? We both see red yet do we both experience the same thing? If we could trade eyeballs or any other parts of the visual perception anatomical components would we all of a sudden see something different than what we had viewed under our own equipment? I know that there are some of us that are color blind but it makes sense to me that for those of us not actually blind we still may perceive different colors in differing intensities relative to the other person.

Too much rambling again. I think what ever floats your boat or in this case, lets you see is legitimate and it may not be common to others.
 
So while I watch the endless arguments about which light is better and how incan is more "natural" (which it isn't), I have not only "opened my mind" to the nice, white beams of LED's nowadays (exemplified by the current crop of Q5's), I have actually gotten to the point where I now very much prefer them in all situations.
Basically, I have, I guess, retrained my brain to filter what I see at night under LED lighting and have no problem at all seeing anything. It's just a matter of "using the force" for you Star Wars fans.
I believe the reason that people like incandescent light at night, especially in outdoor situations, is because the "warm" sprectrum serves to enhance red-green contrast. Since there is very little of significance outdoors that is blue in color, at least in nature, the preference for incandescent is understandable. I find that incandescent light tends to make grass lawns look a lot "deader" than they do in the daytime, things like dead twigs stand out clearly, while during the datime (or under daylight-balanced camera flash) the same lawn will appear more uniform green. Contrast is enhanced, color accuracy is not.

LEDs can enhance contrast for thinsg like fields of blue/purple flowers. However, I find the most accurate flashlight I've been able to build for color rendition is an equal mix of incandescent, and cool-white LED. That is, a broad spectrum light source at around 4000k (roughly equal power at all visible wavelengths). That produced, to my eyes, results that were most similar to a daylight adjusted camera flash in the same situation.

Also, one thing to keep in mind here is that a lot of the eye's ability to naturally "white balance" only works at high illuminance -- for example, during the daytime, your eyes can recognize all color quite well over a wide range of color temperatures, from around 3000K (direct sunlight near sunset) all the way up to more like 9000K (scattered skylight only, no direct sun). In all of those situations, there are thousands of lux of illuminance. Not so with flashlights outdoors at night. Try to work with 9000K light at only a few lux and it will appear pure blue.
 
Last edited:
...............

Also, one thing to keep in mind here is that a lot of the eye's ability to naturally "white balance" only works at high illuminance -- for example, during the daytime, your eyes can recognize all color quite well over a wide range of color temperatures, from around 3000K (direct sunlight near sunset) all the way up to more like 9000K (scattered skylight only, no direct sun). In all of those situations, there are thousands of lux of illuminance. Not so with flashlights outdoors at night. Try to work with 9000K light at only a few lux and it will appear pure blue.

This has been my experience as well and it seems that the lower the lux the greater the need for a better balanced spectrum of light. I am not sure color temperature of the light source is the proper measure to consider unless one is comparing black body sources of various color temperatures. I still think the measure of color temperature of LED's is as misleading as it might be of value. :shrug:
 
Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?
Why not? We have come to what we have from sun and moon lighting, with fire being more recent.

Even incandescent and fluorescent lights tend to have a wide set of frequencies they pump out. You may very well be able to train yourself, but at the same time, it would not surprise me if some of these preferences are genetic. Much in the way that having a significant minority of colorblind men actually appears to be advantageous, more minor differences towards wavelength patterns certainly seems plausible.

That does not take away the idea of conditioning: we like incans because of growing up around their light more than because of their false naturalness. However, that same argument cannot be applied as much to fluorescents. Some people just can't deal with normal fluorescent lights, and AFAIK, it's just biological.

But then, we're dealing with low light levels quite often. Why is it that, for me, a cool Cree destroys my night vision (I haven't seen a warm one, but a few cool blue ones), where any ugly Luxeon (kind of redundant at low levels), orange, purple, green, brown, does not, nor a Nichia (even angry blue ones)? Yet, the Nichias appear far more blue, which should cause problems, right? And why do other 5mm angry blue LEDs, that look the same to me, do it?

Now, clearly, it has something to do with the 'natural' wavelength of the die, and how the phosphors added make it more whitish, but clearly, "this color is good, this is bad," isn't 100% right.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. My apologies for the slow return to the thread. Caught a nasty bug Thursday and fever is no friend to clarity of thought.

There are many interesting things here to consider. Some perspectives and concepts I had not yet considered. One thing that got me thinking was something I've been trying to word but couldn't. I see Don did it quite well. A photo has much more information in it that can be seen after it is processed. I think it's possible that our minds are picking up information that may not seem to be apparent in the view we are observing. I put a 365nm pass through filter on a hotwire or a HID and I see things I didn't know where there but they were all along. This could be true for near Infrared too. So maybe some lights are giving me more image information than I could ever prove but I suspected something was going on.

Thanks to everyone lots to absorb from all of you.

- Jeff
 
Last edited:
Another thing I consider is how I'm processing light from the sky in different conditions. Maybe once or twice a year the atmosphere is just right to cause the sunset to creep toward me to light up the clouds over head and behind me. In this state almost all the light reflected to the earth is beautiful shades of oranges, yellows, pinks and reds. It's really pleasing. Another scenario is a mighty sun-lit day in the woods or forest populated with hardwoods that produce a green canopy. The sunlight is filtered by the many shades of green and is pleasing in a different way. A third scenario is a crystal clear day with alot of blue sky radiating the scene. The clarity is very nice. If I'm going to be in that environment for long I'll alter the imagery with amber colored sunglasses. These cause some comfort to occur and sharpen my vision. It seems that no matter what the weather is during the day, my eyes and brain adjust to the light and I notice areas of optimization for the given type of light.

While looking this thread up I found McGizmo's original Color of Light thread from 2005.
 
Last edited:
Top