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 > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 31st January 2019, 16:22   #61  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
A few years back from now I purpously read a lot of stuff about human eye abilities and discovered all of that, step by step. But I had to calculate a little bit, to get the actual pendants in screen resolutions. There is a lot of information regarding that (e.g. at wikipedia) (I read within the german edition), like ...

Sehschärfe
Auflösungsvermögen
Blickfeld
Der Gesichtssinn
Werbung und Wahnsinn (that one seems "dead", sadly; but I made a screenshot and saved the article locally): Screenshot
Fernpunkt (Optic)
Gesichtsfeld (Wahrnehmung)
Wieviel dpi brauchen Druckdaten wirklich
Schärfe (Fotografie)

Maybe there are links to equally informational english editions of the articles; I hope so.

Last edited by almosely; 31st January 2019 at 17:18.
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 16:25   #62  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by almosely View Post
Maybe there are links to equally informational english editions of the articles; I hope so.
Thanks for the links. I was born and raised in Krautland, no problem with the lingo.
__________________
Groucho's Avisynth Stuff

Last edited by Groucho2004; 31st January 2019 at 20:57.
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 16:51   #63  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
You're are welcome :-) But: If you don't believe in what I've said, then just try it for yourself. Calculate the minimun/optimum distance to your screen and watch the same movie(-scene) once in 720p and once in 1080p. I tested it many times with movies and never saw a difference while watching (not searching, nor pausing). To calculate that, measure your screen width and divide it by 2 (this is the opposite leg). Then take 10 degrees as the alpha angle (= half of the human "Gebrauchsblickfeld", maybe something like "used field of vision") and put that into a formula to calculate the adjacent side (=your optimum viewing distance) of a right-angled triangle. We have chosen the size of our livingroom-tv upon that; a bigger tv would be only stressful to ones eyes. Based on that, apple called his displays "retina" btw. (but meanwhile they are "jumping on the train" of resolution madness, too).

-edit-

And ... Therefore the optimal resolution of a flatscreen-TV for watching moving images should be 1280x720p, because it would be sharper than 720p interpolated to 1080p. 1080p is overkill, same as 4k - but three times 720 is, guess what, 4k (so with these displays, 720p will be just fine again, as it was, when flatscreens used to be "only" hd-ready). But, if it is necessary to focus on smaller areas of a screen, then a higher resolution makes sense. That explanes why the national broadcaster in germany do not use more than 720p too. Of course, one can spend money in pay-tv to get 1080p commercial breaks ;-)

-edit-

"4k - Make HD-Ready great again!" :-)

-edit-

The 20 degrees is a tricky one. As far as I remember, it's the area of our commonly used area of eye movement without moving our head. And something around 20-30 degrees is the area, our eyes are able to see all three, or at least two (red+blue) colors. And: Only exactly in the middle we are able to see 100% sharp. But I had to read everything again, to explain it exactly. I just memorized the 20 degrees as the main issue.

Last edited by almosely; 31st January 2019 at 18:02.
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 20:03   #64  |  Link
wonkey_monkey
Formerly davidh*****
 
wonkey_monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Calculate the minimun/optimum distance to your screen
How do you do that? Surely any such distance is arbitrary. Most people seem to like to sit a lot closer to their TVs (or have a bigger screen) than I do, for example. That's just their preference.
__________________
My AviSynth filters / I'm the Doctor
wonkey_monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 22:04   #65  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
Maybe they need glasses? ;-) Okay, for real; I don't know why they are doing this. It's not natural, but who cares nowadays? The bigger, the better. Today it seems natural to be unnatural. That explains a lot of drawbacks of our time period. One thing is for sure: One do not get, what's going on (onscreen), not entirely; the closer, the less. But inattention and incomprehension seems to be viral too.

Last edited by almosely; 31st January 2019 at 22:21.
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 22:25   #66  |  Link
ChaosKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 845
When your tv is bigger than yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM
ChaosKing is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2019, 23:20   #67  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
Ah, great ;-) So sweet to explain the mechanism of a flip-book (about which nearly everybody was aware of as a eight year old, 35 years back in time) with the help of a modern, interstellar-sized prick-replacement; do the kids nowadays know about flip-books at all?

Something I did just remember regarding apples "retina" displays. While I was researching all of that a few years ago I found out, that apple must have taken the golden selection into consideration. That conclusion came after "reengineering" the correlation between apples screen sizes and resolutions of some of their mobile devices regarding vertical display orientation. They did a great job back than, honestly.

Goldener Schnitt
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2019, 00:17   #68  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinterf View Post
Could you please try this build?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q-...BiEfKn2PrebCVU

EDIT: this fix is also solving an issue - which I never understood - when FFT3DFiltering a simple BlankClip input results in more and more noise over time when bt=0 is used.
Well done! :-) I just reinstalled AVS+ (x64) and corresponding tools and it seems to work perfectly great - I made a quick comparison within AvsPmod GPo and a short testrun through AVSmeter; till now, everything is fine and a few frames faster (0.xx). Thank you!! :-)
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2019, 08:11   #69  |  Link
pinterf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,183
New release.
Download FFT3dFilter v2.6 (20190131)
almosely, thank you for the report, a bug which was obvious but nobody noticed in the last decade.
Code:
Fix: Proper rounding when internal 32 bit float data are converted back to integer pixel values
pinterf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2019, 08:35   #70  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 6,764
Oh WOW, thank you.
Guess no bodiy noticed cos we is all so easily pleased
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2019, 01:54   #71  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Thank you for the updated version. ^_^
__________________
Broadcast Encoder
LinkedIn
FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2019, 01:48   #72  |  Link
ajp_anton
Registered User
 
ajp_anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm/Helsinki
Posts: 775
@almosely

So you're claiming that 720p at 20° is the ideal for TV or a smartphone. I disagree, especially with your comment on this being just marketing.
First, you yourself mentioned well over 1080p for still images. Smartphones are very much still images, and so are a lot of parts in a lot of movies.
Second, you don't need to have the whole screen in your perfect vision at the same time. Your peripheral vision also exists, and you can move your point of interest to a different part of the screen.

edit: removed the gigantic quote.
ajp_anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2019, 19:15   #73  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
@ajp_anton

Everything you described, I described before. So, what is the extra meaning of your post?
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 03:20   #74  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
Okay, because it's an affair of my heart, I will try to make that more understandable.

For example, open a .pdf document on your smartphone. I am assuming you own one with a WQHD (1440 x 2560) resolution or higher. Look at what you see: It's crystal clear, but can you actual read it (without your eyes being strained)? Most probably you are going to zoom in a bit. Now do the same with 720p: It is not as crisp and sharp, with a 100% zoom, but that is not relevant at all. You are going to zoom in too. What are you seeing than? Everything without any difference but some little aliasing. If you are paying attention to the content only, you will not pay any attention to that little bit of aliasing at all. You achieve the same result and satisfaction with both resolutions - if you do not push your nose against the display and watch out for fuzziness and tell your buddy next to you about that. It does not have any relevance in real life at all. Same goes for pictures taken by your smartphone camera. There is absolutely no need to be able to see the border of the glasses of the person within the picture 100% crisp because one focuses on the essential content of the image, the composition, the light, the colors, facial expressions and so on. Quickly show any picture to your buddy - he/she will never watch out for sharpness, only pay attention to what's going on substantially. To sit there and compare the capability of one's display againgst another one's is only the "need", that marketing is making up artificially and indoctrinating that into your mind.

The same goes for movies. There are simply no "lot of parts in a lot of movies which are still images". Almost every scene of a moving picture is what?: Moving. Even it is a still life or a quiet landscape scene, there's almost every time a little zooming or panning. Additional to that there is reflection on the screen, surrounding lights or movement next to the screen or even noise or the movie sound track playing - everything is diversion and engaging your mind. You simply pay not that attention to the resolution - normally, but only if someone is telling you to do so (marketing, or marketing speaking through the mouth of your buddy) by disregarding other (essential) things. Movies are telling stories, and that with the help of a lot of different tools - none of them is screen resolution. This is why science (to read within one of my mentioned articles earlier) defines our ability to observe something with our eyes in general somewhere way below 100% (720p=111%!) (exactly at 2 arc minutes, which would be somewhere around 600x340 pixel). It's psychological and physical dependent. The need to focus on the screen resolution is not born within us but by marketing and selling intentions. Actually to focus on that is hurting us badly in a lot of ways. Not only the pollution resulting in constantly buying new devices and throwing the "old ones" away for nothing that matters, as well as the chronological, physical and mental workload put into earning constantly more money to be able to buy those needless things, which is injuring everybody (ourselves, people we should pay more attention to, social relationships etc.), are the results, but the quality of movies itself. Yes, by ridiculously spending our attention to that, movie makers (respectively the big companies, which are only interested in making more money) create their movies in other ways than before. Look at the blockbusters of the last years. They are based upon insane and stressful pace all over the place, nearly in every area of the scene something is moving around, doing something unessentially, the dialogues are dumb as hell, the plot is ... yeah the plot is to show something and mostly not more than that ... and everything is feeding the "need" to look at small areas of the screen instead of the whole picture, a real "scene", telling something essential. When you are talking to somebody, are you paying attention to what he/she is telling you by his/her voice, mimics and gestures or are you constantly looking away, watching out for things going around? Does that imagination ring any bell within yourself? We should pay attention to what really matters, but that has changed a lot. People are getting less focused on essential things, because they are constantly told to do so - by who?: Marketing. And one not negligibly reason for that is this need to pay attention to the resolution of a screen. That's insane. Yourself are telling me to be "not in need to have the whole screen in your perfect vision at the same time, because your peripheral vision exists and you can move your point of interest to different parts of the screen". That is exactly what I define as a big damage/madness of our time, caused by marketing and screen resolution mania. Your point of interest has changed (or is changing constantly) - you are saying that without beeing aware about the consequences followed by that. This is what I mean.

I mentioned earlier that Apples Retina-displays are based upon what I am trying to explain here. Has anybody ever challenged the quality of those displays when they were introduced back in the years? No! Everybody was praising them the hell out of it. Does anybody remember the marketing claim "sharper than reality" which was introduced with full hd? It's simply true and though totally needless. Marketing is audaciously using the plain truth as advertising and makes folks believe nature is wrong or being better than nature! Don't you realize the tremendous mind fuck behind that? People are marketing's helpless sheep, believing what they are told to believe and - to add insult to injury - they are defending those harmful fairy tales and trying to convert those with open eyes and mind to the blind mob. And the very crux of that is, that the ones causing this misery and damage (people who are creating that marketing crap) are hit by the aftermath to the same scale as anybody else.

Maybe it helps to realize/remember that x264 takes that into consideration too and everybody seems to be fine with that (because there's no marketing interest of pointing ones nose straight to the differences between raw and encoded material, which are there (very obvious ones), but not realized while watching and paying not attention to it). Similar goes for mp3/aac vs wav/flac etc and dts is not necessary at all too (btw I am blind testly able to hear differences between mp3 320/v0 and wav and also differences between aac v5 and wav; only aac v6 is transparent to my ears; of course, I am only able to recognize that in some rare situations; with movies, aac v4 is fine and walking outdoors mostly too, but not at night, when its quiet - then I use aac v6).

Last edited by almosely; 11th February 2019 at 04:44.
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 19:28   #75  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Quote:
because there's no marketing interest of pointing ones nose straight to the differences between raw and encoded material
No, it's because of the bandwidth; we can't air on an high enough bandwidth, especially 'cause the encode has to be live, so it's not going to be very complex due to the latency required to air the signal with an acceptable delay.
Keep in mind that we have a delay that goes from 1 second to maximum 20 seconds (but it's not used except on very rare occasions).
As to the offline encoding, such as bluray disks delivered to the people, the bandwidth goes up, but we're still limited by the specifications and the capacity of the disk.
Even if you take professional disks (not for the public) to store mezzanine files, they are quad layer and with an higher speed for write/read access capable of supporting higher bitrates, but they are still limited.
For instance, back in the days, Sony XDCAM Disks were 128 GB capable of reaching 50 Mbit/s for the video and other spare mbit/s for the audio up to about 60 Mbit/s.
You basically said that issues are there but nobody cares about compressed sources, but I disagree, as there are people who do notice them and the fact that we're not releasing lossless sources to people is simply because of the bitrate required: there's NO WAY to deliver a lossless file via Satellite (too much bandwidth, too expensive), nor via IPTV (nobody has the bandwidth available to stream such a content), nor via Disks (seriously, even if the episode of a series of few minutes would fit in an 128 quad layer disk, it wouldn't have the required reading speed to access all the data and playback smoothly).
In other words, we don't use lossy codecs because of marketing, but because infrastructures and practical usage.

Quote:
I am blind testly able to hear differences between mp3 320/v0 and wav and also differences between aac v5 and wav; only aac v6 is transparent to my ears; of course, I am only able to recognize that in some rare situations; with movies, aac v4 is fine and walking outdoors mostly too, but not at night, when its quiet - then I use aac v6).
The filterbank polyphase in the psychoacustic model of mp3 is no match with the AAC, which has a completely different (and better) implementation, anyway audio is treated with a bit more accuracy compared to video due to the technical ability to have rather small files compared to lossless videos: it is actually possible to deliver to users contents with a good fidelity compared to the original master file on Bluray Disks, but not so much on Satellite, IPTV and OTT as we're forced to use lossy codecs like AC3 and AAC with bitrate between 192 kbit/s and 384 kbit/s due to bandwidth limitation (the extra bits saved on the audio are used for the video which is generally more relevant to the user).

Quote:
Movies are telling stories, and that with the help of a lot of different tools - none of them is screen resolution.
Yes, movies are telling stories and some of them are really moving and last forever.
Saying that a movie is bad because it was shot in the 80s would be like saying that paintings before renaissance were useless due to the lack of perspective.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong in improving and using the technology we have to make things better.

"Yes, but we're not able to see the difference anyway, so why bother?"
Although that it's arguable, I can make you an example that isn't.
There are cameras nowadays capable to shoot at low-resolutions but at a very high framerate, something like the MIT Media ones, capable of recording at 1,000,000,000,000 frames per second through their special technique.
Of course, the human eye is not able to see so many fps, but it's actually useful for science purposes. http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/


Quote:
Not only the pollution resulting in constantly buying new devices and throwing the "old ones" away for nothing that matters, as well as the chronological, physical and mental workload put into earning constantly more money to be able to buy those needless things, which is injuring everybody (ourselves, people we should pay more attention to, social relationships etc.), are the results, but the quality of movies itself.
What? Nothing stops you from not buying a new device or a new TV. If you wanna stay - for instance - on an SD TV connected via SCART or Composite cables, you are totally free to do so. TV channels not only still air contents in multiple resolutions (including SD), but HD/FULL HD channels can be decoded by an HD/FULL HD decoder and downscaled to SD if your TV only supports that. (For 4K it's a bit different, 'cause decoders don't offer the option to downscale due to the complex conversion that would need to take place in converting an HDR to SDR in case of HDR contents).

Quote:
every area of the scene something is moving around, doing something unessentially, the dialogues are dumb as hell, the plot is ... yeah the plot is to show something and mostly not more than that ...
There aren't just action movies and silly comedies these days, though.
The fact that the vast majority of movies is focused on special effects or other things 'cause it *has to look good* has nothing to do with resolutions, it's just because the majority of people like, let's say, action movies with no dialogues and just a lot of shootings and bombs and other special effects, but that has nothing to do with resolution, it would have been the same for SD contents.
I do wanna say one thing, though, and it's about HDR.
I remember that when they introduced Dolby, everybody was exasperated to have effects all over the channels, even when it wasn't needed at all and it ended up "disturbing" the view rather than "enhancing" it, but they eventually got it right later on.
Same thing occurred when 3D was first introduced; I remember people trying to make everything getting into your face, it HAD to come toward the user, even when it wasn't needed at all and it was rather disturbing, but they eventually got it right later on.
Nowadays it's the turn of HDR, in which everybody seem prone to exasperate the colors and the contrast, producing encodes very different from the original natural light of the shot, just because "it has to look good and be stunning to people".
Many people seem to be misusing the HDR, by using it to make images "beautiful" rather than as close to the original as possible, but they will eventually get it right.
For instance, we used PQ when we had to record and encode a show at the theatre, 'cause in theatres the show it's all about people sitting there, it's not for TV, so we had a very dark setup overall but we also had lights in the background that were switched on and off at different times. In the old SDR world, setting the camera with the right black level to get the actors on the stage would have led to severe clipping on the lights in the background, but with PQ we were able to get them both right.
I think that THIS is how people should use HDR and what HDR it's meant to and I think people/colorists will eventually get it right in the future.

Quote:
"not in need to have the whole screen in your perfect vision at the same time, because your peripheral vision exists and you can move your point of interest to different parts of the screen". That is exactly what I define as a big damage/madness of our time
No, it's really up to the content creators, to be fair.
In TV we use 4mm lens that are always on focus on everything and that are capable of keeping everything in focus, regardless of what you are pointing you camera at.
In movies they use different type of lens and it's the director of photography who chooses what has to be on focus and what doesn't.
For instance, in movies, sometimes they choose to recreate things that are "errors" just because it's the feeling that it's meant to be transmitted to people.
One of the common example is whenever you have to shoot a scene in which there's a car approaching you frontally during the night/evening and then stops and is turned off.
Generally, the director of the photography asks you to shoot it the way that it has a thin horizontal line that goes from left to right and then disappears once the car it's switched off.
That line it's actually caused by the lights and although it can be avoided, most people imagine it that way and it's more common to do it this way.
But again, it has nothing to do with resolution.
__________________
Broadcast Encoder
LinkedIn

Last edited by FranceBB; 11th February 2019 at 19:42.
FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 23:30   #76  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
As to the offline encoding, such as bluray disks delivered to the people, the bandwidth goes up, but we're still limited by the specifications and the capacity of the disk. You basically said that issues are there but nobody cares about compressed sources, but I disagree, as there are people who do notice them ...
1280x720 with average P-quantizers of 18 (x264) are enough for the common end user. Of course, exceptions does make sense everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Anyway, there's nothing wrong in improving and using the technology we have to make things better.
I agree completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Of course, the human eye is not able to see so many fps, but it's actually useful for science purposes.
The end user is not a scientist in general. I was referring to that only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Nothing stops you from not buying a new device or a new TV.
You severely underestimate the power of marketing's omnipresent influence. There are only a very few people able to resist, if at all (including me, of course). Free will is a hoax, regarding that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
The fact that the vast majority of movies is focused on special effects or other things 'cause it *has to look good* has nothing to do with resolutions ... it would have been the same for SD contents.
Do you seriously believe one would like to sit 1,5 meters away from a 85 inch display in sd resolution, looking what's going around in every corner of the screen? Yes, it has nothing to do with resolution if the screen size would be as small as times ago, because we do not see the differences anyway. But higher resolutions gave birth to tvs in the size of a landscape where everywhere everything is sharp. With that you can easily focus on small parts of the scene, sitting very close to the screen. Look to the upper left side, focus on that, and you will miss, what's going on at the opposite. Movies are'nt meant/built to tell multiple stories at one time; they are'nt landscapes, no movies within movies; they need ones focus on the whole scene, otherwise comprehension is lost. That results in people becoming less interested in "complex" stories - they are simply not able to fully recognize a story anymore. That changed they way, many movies are produced nowadays, especially the blockbusters. The focus shifted from mental content to visual because of that, sometimes up to trivial pure visual springkling. And that mirrors in often found common behaviour, especially of the youth nowadays - they are'nt interested in focussing because they simply can't (it's not their fault) - and marketing keeps on telling them, that everything is alright with that, get even bigger screens and higher resolutions, become paying zombies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Nowadays it's the turn of HDR, in which everybody seem prone to exasperate the colors and the contrast, producing encodes very different from the original natural light of the shot, just because "it has to look good and be stunning to people".
I know. I used HDR (with DCIMs) a lot while studying design (and marketing, sadly, retrospective) around 12 years ago. I saw every mistake possible with that technique. It's a great thing, but has to be used with care.

Last edited by almosely; 11th February 2019 at 23:37.
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 01:46   #77  |  Link
ajp_anton
Registered User
 
ajp_anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm/Helsinki
Posts: 775
Your posts are just so full of things I disagree with, I'm not going to bother answering it all. I'm just going to say that
Quote:
Originally Posted by almosely View Post
1280x720 with average P-quantizers of 18 (x264) are enough for the common end user. Of course, exceptions does make sense everywhere.
Who are you to decide what's enough for the common end user? The movie's story doesn't change with resolution, but the experience does change when you see everything clearer. Same with your PDF example earlier, you even said that the aliasing is visible, which kind of proves my point. Why even use 720p, as that's overkill for "being able to read"? Because Higher res, sharper pictures and less aliasing is just more pleasant for the eyes.
ajp_anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 02:32   #78  |  Link
almosely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
I could be anybody, but time is limited and, of course, there's fate. There's plenty to reflect on by now. Thank you, pinterf, again, for spending your time and skills to give us this gift. I am going to use "your" fft3dfilter nearly everytime I encode :-)
almosely is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.