Panama 1978: results


Dan Margulis
 

I’ve posted the results of our Panama 1978 study as described below.

Reviewing: This is in the family keepsake category. It’s a cheap desktop scan of a print from 1978, taken in Panama. The photo-finishing of the time imposed a texture in the coating that produces a moire-like pattern when scanned.

The animal on my lap is a three-toed sloth. My suspicion is that slothful retouchers will have a tough time getting a good result on this one, but I’ve never used it in a class so I don’t know for sure.

We have a 27 entrants. When a person submitted two or versions, I chose the one I thought was better. Most people also submitted a list of their steps, thanks very much. I haven’t read these, because I’d rather get a sense of who was successful and who wasn’t before investigating why.

The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #701 to #727. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #728. To get it, I chose what I thought looked like the five best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

I’m going to have some things to say about this assortment, but as usual I’d like to open it up to group discussion first. What do the successful versions have in common? Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.

The folder is in the group Photos section, named Case Study: Panama 1978
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=249151

Because some of us would like a closer look at these, I also have zipped all 28 and uploaded a 48 mb file to our Files section,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/files/
Search for Panama_entries_062920.zip

I look forward to your comments.

Dan Margulis

P.S. The next case study is announced today, look for a separate post. The countdown begins, we have five case studies left.


Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 29, 2020, at 7:21 AM, Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis@...> wrote:

I’ve posted the results of our Panama 1978 study as described below.

Please be advised that #716 was submitted in ProPhoto RGB rather than sRGB as instructed. If you are doing any comparing with this picture you need to convert it first.

Dan



Hector Davila
 

I like the 726 version because it has those realistic colors you get with expensive cameras like Hasselblad and end up in Time magazine.

I like the 728 par version  (i don't know what par means) because the colors are closer to a consumer camera that most people own and colors they are familiar with.


Hector Davila


James Gray
 

I thought it interesting that many of the entrants got rid of the texture, however there were many that left in the whole image.  I do not care for the texture in people's faces.

James Gray


On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:21 AM Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I’ve posted the results of our Panama 1978 study as described below.

Reviewing: This is in the family keepsake category. It’s a cheap desktop scan of a print from 1978, taken in Panama. The photo-finishing of the time imposed a texture in the coating that produces a moire-like pattern when scanned.
...

The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #701 to #727. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #728. To get it, I chose what I thought looked like the five best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.



jwlimages@...
 

Wow! What a huge range of variation in these renderings: in overall color range, saturation, casts, etc., in sharpness, global and local contrast, whether & how folks dealt with those artifacts from the textured paper.

 

I was tearing my hair out trying to eliminate those white specs without ending up with a soft blurry mess - then I saw some folks just left the texture in place, and one seemed to exaggerate it - HaHa on me! Seriously I hope to learn something about reducing/removing that kind of noise while enhancing overall sharpness - I think #705 & 726 did pretty well with (looking at the the fur on the sloths). In trying to stamp out the noise in my own version, #715, I overshot & lost too much definition, turning the fur into blotchy shapes, e.g. The par version holds up much better, even though some of that texture pattern is still visible. (and it also has that weird color noise-looking effect in the light blue pants worn by the little girl on the left)

 

I look forward to hearing about people's choices in color treatment, since there is such a great range from warm to cool to desaturated to intensely vivid, light to gloomy dark (again, wow!). And #707 looks virtually re-lit by the vignetting - I guess that's a story-telling choice? Actually maybe that's part of what makes this one interesting, all the different renditions reflecting each person's imagining of the story.

 

Now I wonder if any of these were created strictly for blending purposes…

John Lund


James Gray
 

Ultimately I thought this was very difficult and had little hope of creating something very satisfactory.  However, I thought mine came out fairly good in the face of how difficult it was.  The colors had clearly shifted and faded and I assume we all tried to bring the colors back.  I thought that Dan's shirt in the original looked somewhat purple, so I made his shirt a dark magenta.  Clearly most made the shirt blue.  I tried to adjust the flesh tones to be reasonable.  They were too yellow in the original.  In addition, very light items like Dan's shoes were very yellow.  I thought they should be nearer to neutral.  John, your reference to white specs, I assume you  are referring to the light part of the texture.  I was surprised by how soft many of the versions are.  It was really hard to create some sharpness because the original is not very sharp.  I also decided not to eliminate all of the texture in the clothing.  I think my version looks just a skosh sharper than the par version.  I think my version holds up to the par version fairly well except for the color of Dan's shirt.  Mine is 721.

James Gray    


On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:16 PM jwlimages via groups.io <jwlimages=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:

Wow! What a huge range of variation in these renderings: in overall color range, saturation, casts, etc., in sharpness, global and local contrast, whether & how folks dealt with those artifacts from the textured paper.

 

I was tearing my hair out trying to eliminate those white specs without ending up with a soft blurry mess - then I saw some folks just left the texture in place, and one seemed to exaggerate it - HaHa on me! Seriously I hope to learn something about reducing/removing that kind of noise while enhancing overall sharpness - I think #705 & 726 did pretty well with (looking at the the fur on the sloths). In trying to stamp out the noise in my own version, #715, I overshot & lost too much definition, turning the fur into blotchy shapes, e.g. The par version holds up much better, even though some of that texture pattern is still visible. (and it also has that weird color noise-looking effect in the light blue pants worn by the little girl on the left)

 

I look forward to hearing about people's choices in color treatment, since there is such a great range from warm to cool to desaturated to intensely vivid, light to gloomy dark (again, wow!). And #707 looks virtually re-lit by the vignetting - I guess that's a story-telling choice? Actually maybe that's part of what makes this one interesting, all the different renditions reflecting each person's imagining of the story.

 

Now I wonder if any of these were created strictly for blending purposes…

John Lund


jwlimages@...
 

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 08:42 PM, James Gray wrote:
John, your reference to white specs, I assume you  are referring to the light part of the texture.  I was surprised by how soft many of the versions are.  It was really hard to create some sharpness because the original is not very sharp.
Hi James,

Yes, this was kind of sneaky-devilish in that the original image is very soft but has that nice, crisp texture in it. How to smooth & sharpen simultaneously?! (and still get a sense of fur on the sloths, of course)

John Lund


Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 29, 2020, at 9:16 PM, jwlimages via groups.io <jwlimages@...> wrote:

 

Now I wonder if any of these were created strictly for blending purposes…


No, but this is definitely a blending exercise.

The exercise has three separate challenges:

1) Getting a logical color balance.

2) Having good detail in the faces, for example making sure I have a nose.

3) Doing something reasonable with the texture pattern.

Now I have just gone over the 27 entrants three different times, looking specifically at these three items, not looking for the best treatments but rather whether the treatment is acceptable. And of course the categories have nothing to do with one another; just because somebody has terrible color doesn’t mean he didn’t do a good job with the texture.

My scorecard:

1) Reasonable choice of overall color: 19 acceptable, 8 unacceptable.

2) Reasonable contrast in my face: 11 acceptable, 16 unacceptable.

3) Adequate treatment of the pattern: 11 acceptable, 11 unacceptably blurry, 5 unacceptable because the texture was too pronounced.

It seems to me that #1 is a satisfactory result although there’s always room for improvement. The result in #3 is more psychological than technical; some people couldn’t be bothered to attack the pattern and others decided that if the slightest remnant of the pattern remained in the final result it would be a catastrophe only slightly less serious than Covid-19.

That leaves #2. I haven’t read everybody’s summary but I would be very surprised if anybody came up with acceptable facial detailing without some kind of luminosity blending. It doesn’t take long to figure out the likeliest way. Just open the original scan and look at the channels. Even in their washed-out state, it’s obvious that the facial detail in the red is basically nonexistent but in the green it is quite good.

So, consider this thirty-second correction to the original scan.

1) Auto Tone.

2) Duplicate Layer.

3) Apply Green to Red, Darken mode (Normal mode damages all blue clothing).

4) Change layer mode to Luminosity.

5) Add composite layer.

6) Repeat steps 3 and 4, and flatten.

Simple enough, and gets adequate color and adequate detail.

Since I was doing comparisons, I compared this quickie to everyone’s final version. Ignoring the texture issue, it was better than 13 of the 27, and three others were too close to call.

I admit that this means it was worse than 11 others, however I believe that most of them took substantially longer than 30 seconds to produce,

Dan Margulis

P.S. For those interested in the power of luminosity blending but not in duplicating the above steps, grab a copy of #726, which a couple of people have already commented has excellent detailing. I agree. I rate its color OTOH as acceptable but I’m not a big fan of it. Apply it to a layer on top of your own final image, and change layer mode to Luminosity. It definitely improves John’s #715 and would do the same to most other entries. To see it in dramatic form, grab #706, which has attractive color but is too flat, and apply #726 in Luminosity mode. The result, I think, is at least as good as the par, maybe better.




Gerald Bakker
 

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough. The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back. In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version.

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me.

My favorites are 704, 710, 715 and 728 (the par version).
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough.

It looks sharp enough to me. Something like the roughly comparable #723, now *that one* tried too hard to kill the pattern and wound up soft and blurry.

The issue with #701 is depth in the fleshtone. There’s an easy solution: on a duplicate layer, apply the green to the red, Darken mode, then change layer mode to Luminosity. This IMHO improves the image by 100% or so, and of course there is no sharpening involved.

The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back.
In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version. 

For sure, but we should also be sure to exclude certain things. We know this image is taken in strong sunlight because all the people are squinting. These narrow eyes are going to look like noise to a noise-reduction algorithm and like an edge to a sharpener. Either way the result is not pretty.

To see how little things make a big difference, grab #720 and #722, which are alike in that the people reduced the pattern strongly without eliminating it altogether. I have no problem with that. Let’s suppose that you prefer #722, the more conservative of the two. Put #720 on top of it with a black layer mask to exclude everything. Then open up the mask to incorporate from #720 my eyes and the little green parakeet to the left of the sloths. It changes only a couple of square centimeters, but makes a big difference in the overal composition.

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me. 

Me either.

Dan Margulis


Thomas Hurd,MD
 

Panama photo

My entry is 723.

I started with a regular photo correction process, fairly confident I could wipe out the moire in LAB. Fortunately, the A and B channels did fine with a Gaussian blur of about 2-2.6. However I could not blur the L channel without giving up too much contrast.

I searched for several days until I came upon a Photoshop plug in called Pattern Suppression 2.5, which does some Fourier transform operation and identifies repeating patterns.

It has both grayscale and color mode, but since I felt good about the minimal effort needed to remove the pattern from the color channels, I decided to concentrate on the luminosity portion. So I had to come up with a suitable candidate for the eventual L channel. I tried the operation on 3 candidates: the L channel, the magenta channel and the RGB composite desaturated with an adjustment layer. I tried both normal and aggressive suppression. 

Eventually I chose the desaturated RGB composite with normal suppression, and used that for the L channel, although the magenta for L was darker with more contrast.

In for a penny, in for a pound, so I took another two cents worth at the noise in ACR, using luminosity and color noise reduction globally. This was good for the girl’s hair and face to remove the purple and green noise. I then used an adjustment brush with some moire reduction and dehaze to remove some stubborn spots on Dan's shirt. 

After that I proceeded with a somewhat pedestrian attack at color and contrast with the PPW panel, primarily false profile with multiply to set up mmm and color boost, and then sharpen 2018.

I returned to camera raw to add texture via adjustment to the hair (Or fur and feathers) of the main characters.

I tweaked the colors a bit toward blue at the end, although I had taken out a cyan cast initially in the color correction. 

I did some mild dodge and burn curve layers and set the endpoints to the highlight on the shirt of the man in the background, and a shadow point under the foreground blue jeans.

I was very satisfied with the trade offs to eliminate the moire. Once I knew it was there the pattern was driving me nuts. I played around with different curve shapes to trade off weight vs. luminosity contrast. In this group of entrants I would say I was lighter than most in the highlights, but better overall at removing the pattern.

Addendum: It really bugged me that I relatively blew out the highlights in Dan’s forehead to get a better overall contrast and sharpness. And after I saw everyone else’s who had a bit more pattern left over but deeper colors I tried another technique (post entry). I duplicated the jpeg entry, made a smart object. On that layer I applied some  monochromatic Gaussian noise to the entire photo, added a curves adjustment to darken midtones quarter tones. Camera raw was use on the same smart layer to decrease some warm tone enhanced by the curves adjustment. 

I was certainly inspired to get the pattern out, since Dan mentioned it from the start. But in the end it depends on how magnified the image is for viewing. Small enough, the screen patten disappears into the color, large enough it’s distracting, larger still its annoying. Guess it depends the size of the family keepsake print.

I am looking forward to reading how everyone else approached this image, and how to approach an image after aggressive noise reduction or smoothing.

This is just halftime of the summer color olympics. I’m planning to adjust my offense in the second half to use multiple formations to fool the visual senses with more image blending.

Tom Hurd


On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:32 AM, jwlimages via groups.io <jwlimages@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 08:42 PM, James Gray wrote:
John, your reference to white specs, I assume you  are referring to the light part of the texture.  I was surprised by how soft many of the versions are.  It was really hard to create some sharpness because the original is not very sharp.
Hi James,

Yes, this was kind of sneaky-devilish in that the original image is very soft but has that nice, crisp texture in it. How to smooth & sharpen simultaneously?! (and still get a sense of fur on the sloths, of course)

John Lund


Thomas Hurd,MD
 

My favorites for this exercise were 

704
705
710
715
717
726
727
728
They each had reasonable pattern reduction and good color

Tom.

On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis@...> wrote:



On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough.

It looks sharp enough to me. Something like the roughly comparable #723, now *that one* tried too hard to kill the pattern and wound up soft and blurry.

The issue with #701 is depth in the fleshtone. There’s an easy solution: on a duplicate layer, apply the green to the red, Darken mode, then change layer mode to Luminosity. This IMHO improves the image by 100% or so, and of course there is no sharpening involved.

The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back.
In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version. 

For sure, but we should also be sure to exclude certain things. We know this image is taken in strong sunlight because all the people are squinting. These narrow eyes are going to look like noise to a noise-reduction algorithm and like an edge to a sharpener. Either way the result is not pretty.

To see how little things make a big difference, grab #720 and #722, which are alike in that the people reduced the pattern strongly without eliminating it altogether. I have no problem with that. Let’s suppose that you prefer #722, the more conservative of the two. Put #720 on top of it with a black layer mask to exclude everything. Then open up the mask to incorporate from #720 my eyes and the little green parakeet to the left of the sloths. It changes only a couple of square centimeters, but makes a big difference in the overal composition.

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me. 

Me either.

Dan Margulis



John Gillespie
 

I also used the pattern suppression plugin (version 705). 

After a few experiments I decided to use it after contrast and colour enhancement rather than before, as this seemed to give the best result. 
There was some residual noise left over (white spots) which could then be removed with a mild application of the dust and scratches filter. 
To me this was the most interesting aspect of the challenge so I probably went too far in attempting to kill the pattern virus. However with more experience using the plugin it may be possible to get a better result. 

Ultimately there is a trade-off between getting rid of the noise and keeping detail/sharpness and most entries fall on a continuum from one extreme to the other.
I find that looking through the images in preview favours the sharper versions, but at 100% magnification some of the less noisy ones become preferable. 

726 is in my opinion the best effort, good colour and contrast/detail with a good trade-off between noise and sharpness. I prefer it to the par version, which is second best. I do find the par version a tad over-saturated and the skin and hair too red and not quite believable. 

John Gillespie


Hector Davila
 

You can remove the texture 100 percent without it getting soft with something like this:
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/message/25296

Hector Davila

On 6/30/2020 9:19 AM, Gerald Bakker wrote:
One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft.


Thomas Hurd,MD
 

John,

I have started to look at the images in bridge or Photoshop, because I think the color is truer.

I will try the order as you suggested, since I used it at the virtual beginning.

Tom

On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:32 PM, John Gillespie <john@...> wrote:

I also used the pattern suppression plugin (version 705). 

After a few experiments I decided to use it after contrast and colour enhancement rather than before, as this seemed to give the best result. 
There was some residual noise left over (white spots) which could then be removed with a mild application of the dust and scratches filter. 
To me this was the most interesting aspect of the challenge so I probably went too far in attempting to kill the pattern virus. However with more experience using the plugin it may be possible to get a better result. 

Ultimately there is a trade-off between getting rid of the noise and keeping detail/sharpness and most entries fall on a continuum from one extreme to the other.
I find that looking through the images in preview favours the sharper versions, but at 100% magnification some of the less noisy ones become preferable. 

726 is in my opinion the best effort, good colour and contrast/detail with a good trade-off between noise and sharpness. I prefer it to the par version, which is second best. I do find the par version a tad over-saturated and the skin and hair too red and not quite believable. 

John Gillespie


john c.
 

I was wondering the same thing myself. I didn't participate in this exercise, but FFT would've been my first step.
john castronovo

-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Davila
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:48 PM
To: colortheory@groups.io
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Panama 1978: results

You can remove the texture 100 percent without it getting soft with
something like this:
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/message/25296

Hector Davila


On 6/30/2020 9:19 AM, Gerald Bakker wrote:
One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft.


Thomas Hurd,MD
 

Hector,

As I was searching for a program to eliminate the screen pattern, I came across one that sounds like the same one you described, but a newer version. I used a plug in Pattern suppressor 2.5, available on Adobe exchange. It is an action and a collection of plug ins that the action runs.

The earlier versions were called FFT, which guess is just an acronym for the general type of program, of which I just discovered there are several.

Anyway, the plug in I used was free, and when I had a problem with it, I emailed the three guys who collaborated on it, and one guy wrote me back in about 5 minutes!

Even though I wound up overdoing it on this exercise, I am happy to have found it for future use, if I can learn to tame it…

Tom Hurd

On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Hector Davila <amerphoto@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

You can remove the texture 100 percent without it getting soft with something like this:
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/message/25296

Hector Davila


On 6/30/2020 9:19 AM, Gerald Bakker wrote:
One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft.



Thomas Hurd,MD
 

Gerald,

What was the proper sharpening routine that you used? My version was 723, AKA *that one*, and I tried the 

On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough. The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back. In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version.

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me.

My favorites are 704, 710, 715 and 728 (the par version).
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


John Furnes
 

I am 714, and can now see how blue it is.

I started out by running Dust&Scratches at 4/0. I realised it became a bit soft, but was intent on getting the moiré away with.

Then I went for colour correction with 3 different  takes. This gave away with the yellow cast.

After that I ran Green to Red twice, and got a reasonable skin representation – both black and white.

In MMM I think I chose a too mellow selection to really get enough variation, and concentrated on Dan’s face and the face of the standing boy. I also ran Velvet Hammer, adjusted curves ( for the light of faces).

Finally I combined 2 versions (I made 7 versions). But too blue.

I did not do a final sharpen.

 

I think that the poor scanning, with moiré needs to be adjusted before anything.

 

So, there is a lot to learn. However, I like it that all you guys, and Dan criticize us all.

 

Best

John Furnes

 

From: colortheory@groups.io <colortheory@groups.io> On Behalf Of Gerald Bakker
Sent: 30. juni 2020 18:20
To: colortheory@groups.io
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Panama 1978: results

 

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough. The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back. In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version.

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me.

My favorites are 704, 710, 715 and 728 (the par version).
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


Thomas Hurd,MD
 

Sorry I pushed the send button too soon.

What was the proper sharpening routine that you used? My version was 723, AKA *that one* that was overdone on the pattern suppression, and I tried the 2018 PPW panel sharpening.

I had a step of green channel luminosity blending in my workflow, but I was wondering if your sharpening was different.

Tom Hurd

On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

One of the most difficult aspects of this image was the handling of the moiré. Leave too much of it and it's distracting (e.g. in 724). Remove too much and the image gets soft. My own version is 701, in comparison it looks not sharp enough. The issue for me was, I thought I had removed enough of the pattern right at the start of the processing, but at the end a proper sharpening brought it back. In hindsight, it's probably okay to leave some of the moiré, allowing for a better focused version. 

Color-wise I went for a warm look, I think that fits the Panama-in-summer situation, even though there is obviously no direct sunlight. Cold colors like in 714 do not work for me. 

My favorites are 704, 710, 715 and 728 (the par version). 
-- 
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl