Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th June 2015, 19:55   #30861  |  Link
omarank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
My impression is that - although we've made some progress - we won't get to where we want to get, with everyone testing everything. I fear my last feedback request was too broad and not specific enough. Would you guys agree? I'm wondering whether we should switch two gears back and simply start by looking at one algorithm at a time, to reduce each algorithm's complexity first, before looking at how they interact. E.g. we could start with FineSharp, looking at all the available options, and reducing them to a low/med/high. Then move on to LumaSharpen etc. Doing this would also make testing of the combined effects of all algos easier. Or what do you guys think?
I agree. You asked the users to specifically focus on debanding first, and finally after all the feedbacks, the three presets could be finalized as you intended. I think the same approach should be followed for each algo.

I haven’t had the time to test the sharpening and refinement algos. I will be doing some extensive testing by this weekend and post my feedback soon. However, if we focus on just one algo at a time, it will need less time to do the testing and I wouldn’t have to wait for the weekend to come.
omarank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 20:36   #30862  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
nevcairiel is kinda right. I already did SuperRes and Finesharp tests for myself weeks ago.
Now my interest got somewhat low.
But I'll post some cartoon comparisons this week.

What I remember:
high error upscaling quality can look better, but hard to say if it's worth the extra resources.
SuperRes for chroma gives undesired results, vanishes contours.
SuperRes for luma is great, image can look much sharper with almost no artifacts introduced (with the correct settings).
NNEDI is still worse than NNEDI3, also with SuperRes (introduces visible aliasing).
I find FineSharp more natural than Lumasharpen. Problem with sharp sources could be solved to some degree if we had a deblock pass first.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 21:33   #30863  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post
I get that, is it or can it be available as a shader for MPC/MPCHC?
Technically not possible right now, because custom shaders are not flexible/powerful enough to run Shiandow's deband. At some point in the future, that should be possible, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post
And I can't stress enough, please editable boxes instead of only two buttons that move by 0.01 or other small step that is not perceptible and takes forever to move the value from 0.00 to 1.00. I've tried ctrl+click, shift+click but nothing seems to increase the step.
Of course my plan is to get rid of the edit boxes altogether and just offer low/medium/high. I could allow the edit boxes to be edited, but it's not that simple, then I also must parse the text and complain if the format isn't correct etc. So some extra work involved there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
If you want people to test one thing, you need to give them one thing, and one thing only. By adding all the features at once to madVR, you will spark their interest. They are not going to stop testing all the toys and just focus on one at a time.
You're right. Introducing one new feature at a time would have been better for feedback. But it is what it is now. For debanding the concentrated feedback effort did work, more or less. So I'll try my luck with the other algos, too, separately...

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
for example you can easily move superres sharping to one of the sharpening filter when the sharpening from superres is not what you want.

i have AR on 1.0 in general i haven't found any issue with it at this setting what so ever. and even jinc3 LL AR looked totally fine.
I'm wondering: Do you still need madVR's anti-ringing filter if you use SuperRes with AR processing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecurityBunny View Post
Sure thing. On stand-by.
Ok, here's a test build somewhere between v0.88.8 and v0.88.9. You said the problem started with v0.88.9, right? Please let me know if this test build fills the queues like v0.88.8 did, or not.

http://madshi.net/madVR889test1.rar

Quote:
Originally Posted by omarank View Post
I agree. You asked the users to specifically focus on debanding first, and finally after all the feedbacks, the three presets could be finalized as you intended. I think the same approach should be followed for each algo.

I haven’t had the time to test the sharpening and refinement algos. I will be doing some extensive testing by this weekend and post my feedback soon. However, if we focus on just one algo at a time, it will need less time to do the testing and I wouldn’t have to wait for the weekend to come.
Ok, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
nevcairiel is kinda right. I already did SuperRes and Finesharp tests for myself weeks ago.
Now my interest got somewhat low.
But I'll post some cartoon comparisons this week.

What I remember:
high error upscaling quality can look better, but hard to say if it's worth the extra resources.
SuperRes for chroma gives undesired results, vanishes contours.
SuperRes for luma is great, image can look much sharper with almost no artifacts introduced (with the correct settings).
NNEDI is still worse than NNEDI3, also with SuperRes (introduces visible aliasing).
I find FineSharp more natural than Lumasharpen. Problem with sharp sources could be solved to some degree if we had a deblock pass first.
Deblocking will probably come, but rather later than sooner.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 21:43   #30864  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Ok, here's a test build somewhere between v0.88.8 and v0.88.9. You said the problem started with v0.88.9, right? Please let me know if this test build fills the queues like v0.88.8 did, or not.

http://madshi.net/madVR889test1.rar
Sorry, this was a bad one. Use this instead:

http://madshi.net/madVR889test2.rar

And don't use error diffusion in this build.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 21:51   #30865  |  Link
Shiandow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I'm wondering: Do you still need madVR's anti-ringing filter if you use SuperRes with AR processing?
Well, SuperRes only removes the ringing afterwards, so enabling MadVR's anti ringing should have some effect. I suspect SuperRes will converge slightly faster if you use madVR's anti-ringing. The difference, if any, will be most visible when you use a low number of passes (which seems to be the popular choice).
Shiandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 21:52   #30866  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Feedback

I've changed my mind. I think we'll make bigger steps faster, if we concentrate the feedback on very specific things. So while you're welcome to do further tests with SuperRes etc, if you like, please concentrate your efforts on FineSharp. I would like to remove all the FineSharp controls, and just end up with low/medium/high (for both "image enhancement" and "upscaling refinement"). When testing FineSharp, it would make sense to disable LumaSharpen and SuperRes, so that you really only test FineSharp separately. You can test FineSharp either in image enhancements (before upscaling) or in upscaling refinement (after upscaling). Testing it before upscaling should have a stronger effect, so it might be easier to see the difference between various settings there. But you decide whether you want to test it before or after upscaling.

Questions:

1) Do you prefer linear light on or off?
2) In my own very short tests I found that FineSharp sometimes introduces aliasing artifacts. These seem to be mostly fixed by setting the "repair" option to rather high values. Personally, I've tried setting "repair" to 1.0, and liked the result. But what is your opinion about this? Do you find "repair" at 1.0 works for you? Or would you prefer it at a lower value?
3) Do you see a difference worth noting between the 3 different modes? Please note that these modes will make more of a difference if the sources have stronger grain. So in order to judge which modes work best and which worst, it might make sense to also test with a source with a lot of grain in it. FWIW, mode 3 is slower, modes 1 and 2 are faster. So if you like mode 3 best, but not much better than 1 and 2, then it would still be useful to know whether you prefer 1 over 2 or the other way round.
4) Which combinations of strength and thinning would you suggest for low/medium/high presets?

Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 22:47   #30867  |  Link
SecurityBunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Sorry, this was a bad one. Use this instead:

http://madshi.net/madVR889test2.rar

And don't use error diffusion in this build.
Could I get a 64 bit version to test or do you want me to downgrade to 32bit MPC-HC? Renaming the file to madVR64 didn't seem to force the file to load.
SecurityBunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 23:26   #30868  |  Link
TheLion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
Feedback Finesharp

I find Finesharp extremely useful for high quality sources (e.g. high bitrate BluRay). With lesser source material artifacts become too obvious, but put great stuff in, and it results in a nice boost of clarity, apparent sharpness without the "fat look" of traditional "Edge Enhancement". Very nice!

So I will only comment on using it with native 1080p BluRay playback (therefor no scaling, -> image enhancement).

1) I certainly prefer linear light ON. It introduces less ringing/halos/artifacts in many examples to my eye. There are test charts that make that more than obvious: eg. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9J...ew?usp=sharing

2) The default values + linear light are working great for me. Repair 1.0 does no harm either from what I can see.

3) I prefer mode 3 (slightly less artifacts), can't find an example where I can see a relevant difference between 1 and 2

4) Again, default values + linear light + mode 3 work great for me. everything over strength 2.0 get's problematic, I wouldn't go over ~2.5 even on very good sources.

Last edited by TheLion; 8th June 2015 at 23:30.
TheLion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th June 2015, 23:32   #30869  |  Link
GCRaistlin
Registered User
 
GCRaistlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
XP, euwh.

Ok, if these freezes occur, does the media player still react to you?
Yes, it does, I'm able to close it.
__________________
Windows 8.1 x64

Magically yours
Raistlin
GCRaistlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 00:20   #30870  |  Link
baii
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 180
finesharp (only mode 1, strength from .4- 1.0, repair default)

I like it as image refinement(which had been known since it was a avisyth script), not so much for upscaling. finesharp on upscale material seem to bring artifact out(which can also say it do a good job sharpening?) . linear light on seem to make the artifact harder, prefer it off.
baii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 00:23   #30871  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecurityBunny View Post
Could I get a 64 bit version to test or do you want me to downgrade to 32bit MPC-HC? Renaming the file to madVR64 didn't seem to force the file to load.
Just download the 32 bit version. Much faster that way. You could've done that and been posting a reply rather than asking and waiting for something that might not come.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 00:33   #30872  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I'm wondering: Do you still need madVR's anti-ringing filter if you use SuperRes with AR processing?
hard to judge in general. in the newest test i did it wasn't needed.
but jinc it self has little to no effect too.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 03:32   #30873  |  Link
MysteryX
Soul Architect
 
MysteryX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
hard to judge in general. in the newest test i did it wasn't needed.
but jinc it self has little to no effect too.
I was wondering the same question, and then tried to use only SuperRes for anti-ringing. It did NOT remove ringing resulting from upscaling.

Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:03.
MysteryX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 04:31   #30874  |  Link
Anime Viewer
Troubleshooter
 
Anime Viewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Feedback
please concentrate your efforts on FineSharp. I would like to remove all the FineSharp controls, and just end up with low/medium/high (for both "image enhancement" and "upscaling refinement"). When testing FineSharp, it would make sense to disable LumaSharpen and SuperRes, so that you really only test FineSharp separately. You can test FineSharp either in image enhancements (before upscaling) or in upscaling refinement (after upscaling). Testing it before upscaling should have a stronger effect, so it might be easier to see the difference between various settings there. But you decide whether you want to test it before or after upscaling.

Questions:

1) Do you prefer linear light on or off?
2) In my own very short tests I found that FineSharp sometimes introduces aliasing artifacts. These seem to be mostly fixed by setting the "repair" option to rather high values. Personally, I've tried setting "repair" to 1.0, and liked the result. But what is your opinion about this? Do you find "repair" at 1.0 works for you? Or would you prefer it at a lower value?
3) Do you see a difference worth noting between the 3 different modes? Please note that these modes will make more of a difference if the sources have stronger grain. So in order to judge which modes work best and which worst, it might make sense to also test with a source with a lot of grain in it. FWIW, mode 3 is slower, modes 1 and 2 are faster. So if you like mode 3 best, but not much better than 1 and 2, then it would still be useful to know whether you prefer 1 over 2 or the other way round.
4) Which combinations of strength and thinning would you suggest for low/medium/high presets?

Thanks!
I realized one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post on my thoughts and testing of finesharp: On my Optimus system if I use any of the FineSharp modes in upscaling refinement combined with having image doubling enabled while using my Intel GPU the screen has spasams of what look like flashes of repeated frames (but it doesn't report any delayed frames). A ton of presentation glitches occur along with a handful of dropped frames. (Presentation glitches far out number the amount of dropped frames reported in that same time period). Using the Nvidia GPU no such problem occurs. This is another reason why I prefer using the FineSharp in image enhancement as opposed to the FineSharp in upscaling refinement. With the the FineSharp in image enhancement I can combine it with image doubling and playback using the Intel without any problems.

Now to your specific questions:
1) Like I said in my previous post in FineSharp testing I like FineSharp better with linear light enabled if I'm using the image enhancement version, but if I'm using the upscaling refinement version I prefer it off.
2) The repair setting has no noticable effect as far as I can tell on my system. I see no difference (no improvement) between having a setting of 0.10 and 1.0.
Is there another madVR setting that might be interfering with the the repair effect?
3) I'm not seeing a significant difference between the three modes. (I guess my test videos don't have enough grain).
4) I think I prefer lesser amounts of strength. What else is combined with with FineSharp to enhance/refine/upscale can be a factor to what to set FineSharp to. With more power choices in other areas FineSharp can be used with lesser power. I think 0.5 isn't a bad setting. Depending on other peoples thoughts that might make a good low. Thinning could be left at the current default unless there is a general consensus by other users that another setting works better.

I think its worth people reporting if they used any type of image doubling during their testing. For me image doubling has a very strong effect on FineSharp.
__________________
System specs: Sager NP9150 SE with i7-3630QM 2.40GHz, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit Windows 10 Pro, NVidia GTX 680M/Intel 4000 HD optimus dual GPU system. Video viewed on LG notebook screen and LG 3D passive TV.

Last edited by Anime Viewer; 9th June 2015 at 04:39.
Anime Viewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 04:34   #30875  |  Link
MysteryX
Soul Architect
 
MysteryX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?

Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:03.
MysteryX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 05:27   #30876  |  Link
MysteryX
Soul Architect
 
MysteryX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryX View Post
I was wondering the same question, and then tried to use only SuperRes for anti-ringing. It did NOT remove ringing resulting from upscaling.
I withdraw this.

SuperRes's anti-ringing *can* replace the upscaler's anti-ringing, but .50 is not enough. It takes more something like .75.

Madshi, does that anti-ringing apply to both chroma and luma?

It doesn't do as good of an anti-ringing job than the standard anti-ringing, but removing standard anti-ringing allows to save on performance, increase other settings, or afford SuperRes.

I know you're looking into FineSharp for now, but when you get to SuperRes, perhaps you could have a few preset, and then the option of having 1 or 2 passes. If doing a single pass, all the values need to be higher to give a similar result. I can only afford a single pass.

Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:02.
MysteryX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 06:16   #30877  |  Link
SecurityBunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
Just download the 32 bit version. Much faster that way. You could've done that and been posting a reply rather than asking and waiting for something that might not come.
For all you could know, the issue may lie within the 64 bit operation since that is what I use and originally tested with. The last test build madshi provided to me had a 64 bit version, but I digress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Sorry, this was a bad one. Use this instead:

http://madshi.net/madVR889test2.rar

And don't use error diffusion in this build.
Version shows 0.88.9 when checking with this build. Queues unfortunately still do not fill with D3D11 and 10-bit output. D3D9 with 10-bit output, queues fill.

And of course again, testing 0.88.8 with D3D11 10-bit, queues fill.

A 64 bit .ax file for testing, similar to the previous debugging builds you provided, would be preferred - to avoid having to use a 32bit player. Thanks.
SecurityBunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 08:21   #30878  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecurityBunny View Post
For all you could know, the issue may lie within the 64 bit operation
The likelihood of that is extremely low. But then if you'd just downloaded the 32 bit version and tested then you'd know that too.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 08:23   #30879  |  Link
kalston
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryX View Post
madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?
Volume level display? That sounds like a media player thing.
kalston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2015, 09:27   #30880  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiandow View Post
Well, SuperRes only removes the ringing afterwards, so enabling MadVR's anti ringing should have some effect. I suspect SuperRes will converge slightly faster if you use madVR's anti-ringing. The difference, if any, will be most visible when you use a low number of passes (which seems to be the popular choice).
Ok, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post
Feedback Finesharp

I find Finesharp extremely useful for high quality sources (e.g. high bitrate BluRay). With lesser source material artifacts become too obvious, but put great stuff in, and it results in a nice boost of clarity, apparent sharpness without the "fat look" of traditional "Edge Enhancement". Very nice!

So I will only comment on using it with native 1080p BluRay playback (therefor no scaling, -> image enhancement).

1) I certainly prefer linear light ON. It introduces less ringing/halos/artifacts in many examples to my eye. There are test charts that make that more than obvious: eg. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9J...ew?usp=sharing

2) The default values + linear light are working great for me. Repair 1.0 does no harm either from what I can see.

3) I prefer mode 3 (slightly less artifacts), can't find an example where I can see a relevant difference between 1 and 2

4) Again, default values + linear light + mode 3 work great for me. everything over strength 2.0 get's problematic, I wouldn't go over ~2.5 even on very good sources.
Thanks. So for "image enhancements" you would suggest a strength of 2.0 for the "high" preset, using the default "thinning"? Have you played with the "thinning" a bit to find out whether you like it at its default value or slightly different maybe?

What would you suggest for medium and low presets?

And how much better do you like mode 3? I'm asking because it costs more performance. So the question is whether it's worth the added performance cost?

Quote:
Originally Posted by baii View Post
finesharp (only mode 1, strength from .4- 1.0, repair default)

I like it as image refinement(which had been known since it was a avisyth script), not so much for upscaling. finesharp on upscale material seem to bring artifact out(which can also say it do a good job sharpening?) . linear light on seem to make the artifact harder, prefer it off.
Do you dislike linear light only for upscaling refinement, or also for image enhancement? Do you have a specific sample where linear light makes FineSharp look worse? Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anime Viewer View Post
1) Like I said in my previous post in FineSharp testing I like FineSharp better with linear light enabled if I'm using the image enhancement version, but if I'm using the upscaling refinement version I prefer it off.
Can you explain why you like it better/worse in either of these sections? In which way does it look better in image enhancement? In in which way does it look worse in upscaling refinement? Have you tested FineSharp alone (without SuperRes etc) in upscaling refinement? Do you still dislike linear light there? Or maybe it's only when used together with SuperRes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anime Viewer View Post
2) The repair setting has no noticable effect as far as I can tell on my system. I see no difference (no improvement) between having a setting of 0.10 and 1.0.
Is there another madVR setting that might be interfering with the the repair effect?
Not really. Try this image:

http://madshi.net/castleOrg.png

Double it with NNEDI3, then apply FineSharp as upscaling refinement. Then compare repair with 0.0 to 1.0. Look at the diagonal roof lines. They contain a bit of aliasing when using repair 0.0, which is mostly gone with 1.0. Using 0.25 is somewhere in between. It's a subtle difference in this image. I've seen far worse aliasing caused by FineSharp in other images. Sadly I can't find them on a quick look right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anime Viewer View Post
4) I think I prefer lesser amounts of strength. What else is combined with with FineSharp to enhance/refine/upscale can be a factor to what to set FineSharp to. With more power choices in other areas FineSharp can be used with lesser power. I think 0.5 isn't a bad setting. Depending on other peoples thoughts that might make a good low. Thinning could be left at the current default unless there is a general consensus by other users that another setting works better.
So you'd suggest 2.0 for "high" and 0.5 for "low"? Can you play with "thinning" a bit to see if you like those values to be changed in any way for high or low?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anime Viewer View Post
I think its worth people reporting if they used any type of image doubling during their testing. For me image doubling has a very strong effect on FineSharp.
You mean using FineSharp in image enhancements, and then afterwards doubling? What kind of effect does doubling have on FineSharp in your experience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryX View Post
madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?
I've got nothing to do with such controls. Never had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryX View Post
I withdraw this.

SuperRes's anti-ringing *can* replace the upscaler's anti-ringing, but .50 is not enough. It takes more something like .75.

Madshi, does that anti-ringing apply to both chroma and luma?

It doesn't do as good of an anti-ringing job than the standard anti-ringing, but removing standard anti-ringing allows to save on performance, increase other settings, or afford SuperRes.
Ok, thanks. madVR's anti-ring applies to both chroma and luma, if that's your question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecurityBunny View Post
Version shows 0.88.9 when checking with this build. Queues unfortunately still do not fill with D3D11 and 10-bit output. D3D9 with 10-bit output, queues fill.

And of course again, testing 0.88.8 with D3D11 10-bit, queues fill.

A 64 bit .ax file for testing, similar to the previous debugging builds you provided, would be preferred - to avoid having to use a 32bit player. Thanks.
Does this one fix the issue? It's based on the latest v0.88.11:

http://madshi.net/madVR64queueFix1.rar

If it does fix the issue, please also double check with 23/24p display modes (if your display supports them), with both this build and v0.88.8. Your logs so far were mostly 59p, IIRC.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.