Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:10 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think? 
Author Message
Post The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
I personally am really skeptical. I think its gonna look cheap and basically like a soap opera.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:52 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Quoting myself from the Titanic thread:

Ken wrote:
48 fps will not necessarily look like the motion of video. It will most likely be reduced down to 24 fps to retain the motion of film. The difference is that being filmed at the higher frame rate will result in more dynamic contrasts and much less smearage in the movements. In short, the picture will look richer and crisper. In my view, the advantages of this technology are far more obvious than those of 3D.

And if you think 48 fps is nuts, Doug Trumbull wants to develop the tech to shoot movies in 120 fps.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:33 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1805
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
48 fps is superb technology; it ultimately results in a clearer picture. So I consider Jackson's choice a plus.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:43 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Well I studied frame/refresh rates for almost all my life. The old 24fps film look is definitely a very low motion resolution - and many people have unsuccessfully tried to raise and improve on it. One of that was the Douglas Trumbull 60 fps ShowScan. I never had the pleasure of watching any movie filmed and projected in that format, but it must have been fantastic (among with the unsustainable mechanical wear and tear).....

Check high contrast sequences where the camera travels slowly - mostly horizontally, unsuccessfully trying to manage vertical lines (Psycho has many good examples) - the motion at 24 fps simply isn't smooth enough.

You might want to check this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aMD6dI-rc

The problem in the past was that existing video technologies with higher frame/field rates caused a cheap looking motion smear. The same is the case with the awful smootheing out of film motion resolution in modern hi def widescreen television sets. Everything looks as if it moves on a cheap lubricant.

Give me life-like razor sharp yet smooth motion with no artifacts and I will say goodbye forever to my beloved traditional film look. After all I live in a world with infinite motion resolution, so any true attempt to resemble that look receives my blessings.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:33 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 852
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Threeperf35 wrote:
Well I studied frame/refresh rates for almost all my life. The old 24fps film look is definitely a very low motion resolution - and many people have unsuccessfully tried to raise and improve on it. One of that was the Douglas Trumbull 60 fps ShowScan. I never had the pleasure of watching any movie filmed and projected in that format, but it must have been fantastic (among with the unsustainable mechanical wear and tear).....

Check high contrast sequences where the camera travels slowly - mostly horizontally, unsuccessfully trying to manage vertical lines (Psycho has many good examples) - the motion at 24 fps simply isn't smooth enough.

You might want to check this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aMD6dI-rc

The problem in the past was that existing video technologies with higher frame/field rates caused a cheap looking motion smear. The same is the case with the awful smootheing out of film motion resolution in modern hi def widescreen television sets. Everything looks as if it moves on a cheap lubricant.

Give me life-like razor sharp yet smooth motion with no artifacts and I will say goodbye forever to my beloved traditional film look. After all I live in a world with infinite motion resolution, so any true attempt to resemble that look receives my blessings.


Very true, your last statement! Also thanks for the YT link, I found it very educational :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:58 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Well I did some web browsing and I read comments like: 48 fps looks like live tv and not like a "finished" motion picture.
I am pretty sure we are now in a very similar situation like music was some 14 years ago: we were used to analog artifacts and digital sounded empty, glassy, too clean. Now we know it was not just that. Digital sound still had a lot of problems (and continues to have, but it has come very long way).
BUT I never really liked the 24fps look. I remember that well into the 1980s television news still used 16mm film (shot at 25fps in Europe, hardly any difference). The "stepped motion" just looked awful. Check, for example, many a British tv show from the late 60s through early 80s. Very often it was: indoor shots = video; outdoor shots = 16mm at 25fps. The outdoor shots had a much, much sweeter look, yes, but the 25fps resolution was awful, not to mention the messy look of the video/film mix. I remember myself screaming onto the tv screen: "Please don't go inside the house!!!" - but then someone did and went from 16mm film to "bang!" - video. Now it looked like a cheap live tv show - but it was not because of the doubled motion resolution, it was the goddamn awful look of video back in the day.

The biggest problem (for me) is when you can follow an object slowly traveling across the screen. You can see the steps (unless it is low contrast and blurred). This is the very reason why end credits crawl at such a slow speed. Go very near the theater screen after almost everyone left and you can see the stepped movement. Accelerate just a bit (NOT the film speed, as in frame rate, but the crawl of the letters) and they will become impossible to read. I am all for a very high frame rate. Once everything is digital, which it practically is as we speak, there is no need for such a low res. If movies lack "texture" and look raw, unfinished or like "live tv" at a high frame rate, then the problem should be solved elsewhere.


Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:12 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
I stand corrected:

Doug Trumbull is already shooting in 120.

As an aside, I like how he describes 2001 as "a first-person experience, not necessarily a third-person experience."

A bit from Trumbull's own website:

Quote:
I am a filmmaker, and have made it my responsibility to understand all of the associated arts of film making, and to question them in order to see if we can do things better.

For example, the simple idea of photographing a series of stills into a sequence emerged from early stage illusions, and became movies as we know them. A movie industry was born, and it has gone through a few iterations along the way from 18 frames per second (silents) to 24 fps (talkies), to color, 3D, and wide screen. Cameras used a mechanical pull-down claw synchronized with a shutter in order to advance the film from one frame to the next, closing the shutter to do so. And projectors have used a geneva type sprocket movement to advance the film, while using a double bladed shutter to show each frame twice in order to reduce the flicker (that's why early films were called "the flickers Ð or flicks", since they really did until the Lumiere Brothers invented the double shutter illusion).

I questioned all this beginning in the mid 1970's, studying every film format ever developed. The result was the SHOWSCAN process of photographing and projecting 70 mm movies at 60 frames per second, showing each frame only once, yet still using claw pull-downs in the cameras, and Geneva pull-downs in the projectors. I realized that it was not necessarily the shape or size of the screen that made enough difference, but a higher frame rate led toward a new kind of realism. Few professionals understood that by pulling down the film on every shutter closure we could get 48 fps without any additional stress or speed of the film in the gate. We only had to increase the speed 25% to get to 60 fps, and the technology was entirely compatible with existing film practices. Yet it created a profound sense of "being there", with what Roger Ebert described; "It is as though the screen has become a window, and you can look into that window and what you see seems completely real".


Incidentally, Trumbull talks a bit about 3D in the same article:

Quote:
I believe that a paradigm shift in the technology of experiencing a movie in theatres is urgently needed. Yet the exhibition industry is already reeling at the challenge of converting to expensive digital projection and the associated costs. They are extremely reluctant to install expensive new projection equipment, and even question the value of 3D, as both the novelty wears off, and most producers lack a comprehensive grasp of what 3D should be about. To me, 3D is a large step toward the first-person immersive experience I've been discussing, but unfortunately the content of films has stayed much the same. Producers too often think, "Just make the same film in 3D, and we'll make more money". 3D suffers from a profound lack of adequate viewing brightness as a result of necessary polarizers or filters on projectors and in glasses (and there is tremendous resistance to wearing glasses at all). There is a lot of talk about a workable "3D without glasses" technology, yet almost no talk about the language of cinema that is needed to explore more immersive and powerful experiences.

Higher gain "Torus" screens are one way to recover the lost light of 3D, yet there seems to be almost no institutional memory that Torus screens ever existed, or could be applied to this purpose. Now is the time to reconsider this, and the concept is an important element of what I am developing.

Few professionals are aware that digital projectors are regularly operating at 144 frames per second, since the movies are still shot at 24 fps, and thus each frame is projected several times in order to retain the "no flicker", while also accommodating the needs of 3D, where each frame is "flashed" three times for each eye alternately, so that each eye receives 72 flashes, thus the total of 144. This potential to dramatically increase the frame rate is being largely ignored, although modest increases to 48 fps (such as Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT, in production) have been adopted, and Jim Cameron's AVATAR II & III may soon be shooting at 48 or even 60 fps. These filmmakers have realized that the old standard of 24 fps is inadequate to 3D's needs, and often results in objectionable blurring and strobing that diminishes or destroys the 3D effect altogether on fast action.


Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:59 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
There are reports of the 10 min shown at cinema con that watching something in 48 fps is just as (if not more so) a dramatic change as going from 2d to 3d (in the wow factor). Some people loved it...while others hated it, comparing to it to watching a movie on a 120hz tv with smooth motion turned on...except you know, this was on a giant theater screen.

I have no idea what to expect, but of course I will go see it.

check out this link.

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-ten-minutes-the-hobbit-underwhelms-higher-frame-rates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/#more-125853


Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:09 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
There are reports of the 10 min shown at cinema con that watching something in 48 fps is just as (if not more so) a dramatic change as going from 2d to 3d (in the wow factor). Some people loved it...while others hated it, comparing to it to watching a movie on a 120hz tv with smooth motion turned on...except you know, this was on a giant theater screen.

I have no idea what to expect, but of course I will go see it.

check out this link.

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-ten-minutes-the-hobbit-underwhelms-higher-frame-rates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/#more-125853


Yep, I stumbled across this article as well. As Doug Trumbull states: 24fps is now part of our DNA. That's why the smoother 48fps look reminds many vievers of made-for-tv subjects. I myself would add: the 24fps look retains a certain distance to the viewer. Many people are used to that.
I try to look at it by thinking clearly: high resolution including motion resolution is the only way forward.

Most modern flat tv screens (to my knowledge) come with the motion smoothening through interpolation by default. Soon there will be a whole new generation used to that (artifacts or not). I grew up with true film and 24fps (which I like when it's used by ace cinematographers), but I consider that history already. I waved goodbye and farewell to an old friend. Holding on is the wrong way. Let's speed up the frame rates already!


Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:58 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 852
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Ken wrote:
I stand corrected:

Doug Trumbull is already shooting in 120.

As an aside, I like how he describes 2001 as "a first-person experience, not necessarily a third-person experience."

A bit from Trumbull's own website:

Quote:
I am a filmmaker, and have made it my responsibility to understand all of the associated arts of film making, and to question them in order to see if we can do things better.

For example, the simple idea of photographing a series of stills into a sequence emerged from early stage illusions, and became movies as we know them. A movie industry was born, and it has gone through a few iterations along the way from 18 frames per second (silents) to 24 fps (talkies), to color, 3D, and wide screen. Cameras used a mechanical pull-down claw synchronized with a shutter in order to advance the film from one frame to the next, closing the shutter to do so. And projectors have used a geneva type sprocket movement to advance the film, while using a double bladed shutter to show each frame twice in order to reduce the flicker (that's why early films were called "the flickers Ð or flicks", since they really did until the Lumiere Brothers invented the double shutter illusion).

I questioned all this beginning in the mid 1970's, studying every film format ever developed. The result was the SHOWSCAN process of photographing and projecting 70 mm movies at 60 frames per second, showing each frame only once, yet still using claw pull-downs in the cameras, and Geneva pull-downs in the projectors. I realized that it was not necessarily the shape or size of the screen that made enough difference, but a higher frame rate led toward a new kind of realism. Few professionals understood that by pulling down the film on every shutter closure we could get 48 fps without any additional stress or speed of the film in the gate. We only had to increase the speed 25% to get to 60 fps, and the technology was entirely compatible with existing film practices. Yet it created a profound sense of "being there", with what Roger Ebert described; "It is as though the screen has become a window, and you can look into that window and what you see seems completely real".


Incidentally, Trumbull talks a bit about 3D in the same article:

Quote:
I believe that a paradigm shift in the technology of experiencing a movie in theatres is urgently needed. Yet the exhibition industry is already reeling at the challenge of converting to expensive digital projection and the associated costs. They are extremely reluctant to install expensive new projection equipment, and even question the value of 3D, as both the novelty wears off, and most producers lack a comprehensive grasp of what 3D should be about. To me, 3D is a large step toward the first-person immersive experience I've been discussing, but unfortunately the content of films has stayed much the same. Producers too often think, "Just make the same film in 3D, and we'll make more money". 3D suffers from a profound lack of adequate viewing brightness as a result of necessary polarizers or filters on projectors and in glasses (and there is tremendous resistance to wearing glasses at all). There is a lot of talk about a workable "3D without glasses" technology, yet almost no talk about the language of cinema that is needed to explore more immersive and powerful experiences.

Higher gain "Torus" screens are one way to recover the lost light of 3D, yet there seems to be almost no institutional memory that Torus screens ever existed, or could be applied to this purpose. Now is the time to reconsider this, and the concept is an important element of what I am developing.

Few professionals are aware that digital projectors are regularly operating at 144 frames per second, since the movies are still shot at 24 fps, and thus each frame is projected several times in order to retain the "no flicker", while also accommodating the needs of 3D, where each frame is "flashed" three times for each eye alternately, so that each eye receives 72 flashes, thus the total of 144. This potential to dramatically increase the frame rate is being largely ignored, although modest increases to 48 fps (such as Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT, in production) have been adopted, and Jim Cameron's AVATAR II & III may soon be shooting at 48 or even 60 fps. These filmmakers have realized that the old standard of 24 fps is inadequate to 3D's needs, and often results in objectionable blurring and strobing that diminishes or destroys the 3D effect altogether on fast action.

Thanks Ken for the link, very interesting indeed :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:40 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Threeperf35 wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
There are reports of the 10 min shown at cinema con that watching something in 48 fps is just as (if not more so) a dramatic change as going from 2d to 3d (in the wow factor). Some people loved it...while others hated it, comparing to it to watching a movie on a 120hz tv with smooth motion turned on...except you know, this was on a giant theater screen.

I have no idea what to expect, but of course I will go see it.

check out this link.

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-ten-minutes-the-hobbit-underwhelms-higher-frame-rates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/#more-125853


Yep, I stumbled across this article as well. As Doug Trumbull states: 24fps is now part of our DNA. That's why the smoother 48fps look reminds many vievers of made-for-tv subjects. I myself would add: the 24fps look retains a certain distance to the viewer. Many people are used to that.
I try to look at it by thinking clearly: high resolution including motion resolution is the only way forward.

Most modern flat tv screens (to my knowledge) come with the motion smoothening through interpolation by default. Soon there will be a whole new generation used to that (artifacts or not). I grew up with true film and 24fps (which I like when it's used by ace cinematographers), but I consider that history already. I waved goodbye and farewell to an old friend. Holding on is the wrong way. Let's speed up the frame rates already!


I mean I guess that is what's going on. I know that when I bought my new samsung last year, I just couldn't stand that auto smooth function. It really did make everything I watched look like a damn soap opera. I am supposed to get used to that effect? I really don't see how I ever will. The only thing in which I turned it on for is sporting events...but unlike film and tv (filmed fantasy)...a sporting event IS REAL LIFE.


Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:35 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
So does it boil down to 48fps looks, to our experienced eyes, uncinematic. I remember James saying he didn't like Patton on Bluray for similar reasons.


Wed May 02, 2012 5:29 am
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
I think Berardinelli's main objection to Patton was the overzealous removal of film grain, which gave the film a waxy look.

The reason soap operas move the way they do is that they're shot on video--30 fps, rather than 24. Necessarily, anything significantly higher than 24 is going to move with a smoothness that is more akin to reality, but paradoxically seems unnatural to our eyes that have been trained by a lifetime of movies displayed in 24 fps.

There is a TV Tropes page called "reality is unrealistic" that I think applies here. From the description:

Quote:
This might ... cause viewers to cry foul when things on a show work out in a way that actually is realistic, but contrary to "what everybody knows", like complaining of the "fake Scottish accent" of a real Scottish actor or about a character's death from a bullet "merely" to the shoulder.


I caution everyone to remember that soap operas suck for a great many reasons, but the frame rate isn't necessarily one of them.


Wed May 02, 2012 5:42 am
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Ken wrote:
The reason soap operas move the way they do is that they're shot on video--30 fps, rather than 24.


Sorry if this reads like nerd talk, it isn't. The motion resolution of NTSC television is in fact the double (!) = 60 fields per second. One complete video frame consists of two fields: one containing odd numbered lines and one containg even numbered ones - this yields the complete number of lines hence one complete frame. The two fields, when captured by a video camera, are NOT identical regarding image content, because the video camera keeps scanning the live image constantly, as opposed to the frozen images on motion picture film. So on NTSC video we have 60 images containing diffent movement information. That is very smooth! Now with modern digital technology slowly getting rid of any smearing artifacts which plagued video and live tv for decades, the "soap opera effect" of 48 different images or higher can indeed be pinpointed to "reality is unrealistic".
I still think Peter Jackson is doing the correct thing: stepping right into the future. Many cinematographers commented on the fact that 24 fps is too slow and that they constantly need to work around the problem.
The idea of using 35mm film, 3-perf high and running at 30fps (100% compatible with US NTSC televison but not with European 50 Hz tv such as PAL) is decades old and it would not use up more film. The two obstacles were incompatibility with existing 35mm projectors and the foreign market. 30fps on film still looks "cinematic" but a considerably smoother and if you go for strobing effect (narrow shutter speed - think Saving Private Ryan battle scenes) you still can have it. Of course now with digital you can do all that in-camera and Peter Jackson was wise to chose 48fps. It can always be downsampled to 24fps by either merging pairs of frames (smoother but blurrier) or skipping every other frame (more strobing) for compatibility and if it turns out that people simply don't like it.


Wed May 02, 2012 9:46 am
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Oop. Ya got me, pardner.

I believe part of Doug Trumbull's rationale for 120 is similar--if people don't like it, it can easily be reduced down by multiples of either 30 or 24, depending on the filmmakers' needs.


Wed May 02, 2012 1:47 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Ken wrote:
Oop. Ya got me, pardner.

I believe part of Doug Trumbull's rationale for 120 is similar--if people don't like it, it can easily be reduced down by multiples of either 30 or 24, depending on the filmmakers' needs.


Well I always feel a little "odd" when I correct people. I, like yourself, have no problem with that.

Re: Doug Trumbull: always loved that guy. Yep, of course 120 is the least common multiple of 30 and 24. I'd say: Doug T. is correct: if cameras and hard drives (and budget) can take it: let's speed 'em up to a 120.
I firmly believe that each and every artifact of existing technologies will eventually vanish and perhaps treated like retro kitsch by younger generations. Vinyl and optical sound crackle is used as retro trash in music and film/tv productions by now. I remember some people complaining about the absence of noise, hiss and crackle on CD's (that strange silence) way back in the 80s. J. J. Abrams' Super 8 used and abused the typical lens flare (which was originally unwanted) of Panavision lenses around 1980 as a retro-nostalgia device. One day (I guess) the 24fps look will not be emulated to be cinematic, but to look "retro". Progress is always forward.
Please forgive my endless ramblings: I really have fond memories of that old film look, but I know it's time now to move on.


Wed May 02, 2012 4:59 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
"Please forgive my endless ramblings: I really have fond memories of that old film look, but I know it's time now to move on."

I'll not forgive you, as you've no reason to apologize. Your base knowledge of film mechanics is wonderful, and I have benefitted greatly from your postings.

Thank you,

Dean


Thu May 03, 2012 1:41 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Awf Hand wrote:
"Please forgive my endless ramblings: I really have fond memories of that old film look, but I know it's time now to move on."

I'll not forgive you, as you've no reason to apologize. Your base knowledge of film mechanics is wonderful, and I have benefitted greatly from your postings.

Thank you,

Dean


No problemo! For one reason or another I have seen tons of professional film and video equipment during decades not only near, even many times with "that one guy" who takes the time to explain how it works. One thing is for sure: the greatest "I can't believe how awesome this looks" - moments I experienced was with real film. But it all was very expensive, high maintenance "mechanical overengineering" which is non-profitable in the long run, like "Cinema 180", a fun park attraction, introduced around 1979, using 10-perf vertical 70mm film through a huge fisheye lens and exactly a huge quarter sphere (=half a dome) filled with a bright, picture is wrapped around you and all sorts of fast rides are shown during about 20 minutes. The brain accepts the movie as the new reality. Sure, it was just 24 fps, but what a ride! True IMAX came and it was even better. I also had the pleasure watching 2001 twice during the 1970s on 70mm prints. What a clear picture - pure magic. I would have loved to watch a true Technicolor print, I just saw a few frames "stolen" from reel-changes by a projectionis I knew. It not only looks absolutely stunning but it also doesn't suffer from color fading. But that all was 20th Century technology. I hope the new pioneering cinematographers, technicians and directors can bring that into the 21st century and to the next level. I am not too fond of the look of most current movies. It looks to tweaked and cranked up in a wrong way. That "just gold and blue-green with deep blacks"-color grading (discussed in an earlier thread) is still present in some recent productions (Hugo anyone?): simply awful!


Thu May 03, 2012 10:07 pm
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
While I missed out on the 1970s (due to the notable handicap of not having been born yet), I too have experienced 2001 in 70 mm on two occasions. Nothing compares.

The second incident was even marred by an old-school acid freakout in the audience, which I feel added to the authenticity of the experience, even if it detracted from the film itself.


Fri May 04, 2012 3:24 am
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Ken wrote:
While I missed out on the 1970s (due to the notable handicap of not having been born yet), I too have experienced 2001 in 70 mm on two occasions. Nothing compares.

The second incident was even marred by an old-school acid freakout in the audience, which I feel added to the authenticity of the experience, even if it detracted from the film itself.


Great! Well during the 70s (70-80) I was exactly age 9 through 19, so I'm all about the 70s. The 80s essentially dumped the 70s altogether (counter-check: the 70s didn't dump the 60s, they just took 'em to the next level!), that's one of many reasons why I can't stand the 80s. They ruined my 20s. For me as a keyboard musician, the 70s meant talented regular Joes on acoustic pianos, Rhodes, Hammonds, Mellotrons, Moogs and Arps (fuck, Dennis deYoung, love him or leave him alone, even recorded real church pipe organ on a rock album!) = That's awesome! The 80s meant untalented styled up pretty guys on plastic-synths = bullshit! You can extrapolate that philosophy into almost anything. But I am biased....... so please people: don't discuss it. I appreciate it. Oh well....


Fri May 04, 2012 9:57 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr