See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 147
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Default
    My setting was taken directly from Panasonic for my 130. It is called STYLIN.


    Quote Originally Posted by steve4505 View Post
    OK wonderful. Too many different setting and now I am seeing folk are not consistent in them. I think it was Lance Bruno who had 4 of the setting different from what you just posted (and there is zero explanation in the manual about them). He had vert detail at +2, Detail coring @ -3, Gamma on Low, and Matrix on Cine-Like. The adjustments on these setting is so fine that its hard for me unless I had a color chart to determine why they are set one way or another.
    Panasonic AG AC-130, Sony FDR-AX-100 4K,
    (Formely the Canon Xf-100 XF-300) SONY CX-150 GoPro HD-2 and Canon Hf S30.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    195
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by steve4505 View Post
    OK wonderful. Too many different setting and now I am seeing folk are not consistent in them.
    Agree should not have bothered.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Bruno View Post
    ALSO...keep DRS OFF. 24 fps=Shutter 1/48 30fps=Shutter 1/60 60i=Shutter 1/120
    Sorry Lou, I don't understand this post, is something missing? I also cannot track down Tom Roper's original message to further investigate what he's talking about.

    By the way, I have read that you had a Canon Xf100 and swapped it for an AC90. That's precisely my dilemma about which camera to choose (chance it with the AC90 or play safe with the XF100 but spend much more overall), can I ask you what in your opinion are the main differences between the two cameras (and the codecs)? In your experience of having used both, can you say which is the better one for certain shoots and which is the worse?
    Every camera has its pros & cons, that fit some people and some shoots better than others, can you give us your opinion?

    Cheers


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Default
    Custom Scene files vary, depending on the shooting situation. It can be frustrating to find the favorite setting. For instance, the lowlight settings offered on the Panasonic Pro site would not be proper for outdoors use.

    In other words, different scene files may work at times, while others do not depending on lighting. Also, scene files are a matter of 'taste' as I prefer to adjust the gamma and black levels to crush the blacks. Panasonic had a PDF file that explains all the internal menu scene file functions.

    My favorite is STYLIN. SPARKLE. LOWLIGHT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
    Agree should not have bothered.
    Panasonic AG AC-130, Sony FDR-AX-100 4K,
    (Formely the Canon Xf-100 XF-300) SONY CX-150 GoPro HD-2 and Canon Hf S30.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertoT View Post
    Sorry Lou, I don't understand this post, is something missing? I also cannot track down Tom Roper's original message to further investigate what he's talking about.

    By the way, I have read that you had a Canon Xf100 and swapped it for an AC90. That's precisely my dilemma about which camera to choose (chance it with the AC90 or play safe with the XF100 but spend much more overall), can I ask you what in your opinion are the main differences between the two cameras (and the codecs)? In your experience of having used both, can you say which is the better one for certain shoots and which is the worse?
    Every camera has its pros & cons, that fit some people and some shoots better than others, can you give us your opinion?

    Cheers

    I know the question is not directed at me, however I have been considering a XF105 for several months and now the AG-AC90 has also caught my eye.

    There are many factors I like about both but I would like to point out some of the differences I have noticed while investigating the two.

    Lets start with why I wanted the XF100, price is a factor, I used to do work for tv and I became very comfortable with camcorders big and small. Because a steady job at a station was hard for me to find I switched to freelance, and switched to HDSLR, I missed using cameras like the Sony EX3 BUT myself and clients were excited about the look.... However over time I have noticed there are times when I want a camcorder, built in XLR, waveforms, servo-zooms etc etc... its nice for certain projects.

    XF100 pros (as seen by me & limited time trying the cam)

    The XF codec at 4:2:2 50mbs seemed like a great feature because there is always the chance I might do some broadcast stuff again, however the last place I was, was fine with XD cam 4:2:0 @ 35mbs.... however they insisted on 3 chip cameras..... so really "broadcast acceptable" is a place by place factor. If broadcast acceptability is one of the reasons you are looking into the XF100 it might now be as safe a route as you thought. However having that 4:2:2 is a nice feature regardless!!!

    The XF100 has a TON more recording formats than the AC90, this is great because sometimes people work in entirely 720p workflows, if you work for them its nice to match that (the AC90 does only 1080 & SD) It even has settings for 1440x1080 so if you work for other companies this could be a huge up for you! It also has timestamps if you do legal work.

    The XF105 Offers HD-SDI/Genlock etc etc.... again this, much like the mentioned above, may not be all that important if you only shoot web videos (or weddings/events) where you can just constantly use your same personal workflow.

    XF100 Cons (as observed by me)

    There is no 1920x1080 60p for high-speed..... you are still having to shoot 720p and upscale Brutal in this day and age.

    The noise is pretty noticeable, look at xf100-105 forums and that grain haunts every thread, the single sensor is tiny and just pours tone of noise at even 0db, sometimes compression hides it a bit but there are tons of places to download the native files and see for yourself. Now there are all kinds of picture settings available to help with this but overall, when I think of cameras in this price range I think of event people with lots of low light situations and this little sensor just needs light to look good, if you can light it I'm sure you will be happy... if you can't, watch out

    It looks pretty soft, the lens is not an L and it kinda shows compared to something like an XF300 or EX3, the native sized sensor is nice so there is not real aliasing/moire problems but its just not a sharp looking camera. I hate using SLR's on Deep wides, so that's one of the reasons I want a camcorder kicking around... I want those nice wide and deep focus shots and when I tested this alongside the DSLR footage I was bummed to see only a marginal difference, now I heard that one of the problems is diffraction, and that the built in ND'S just can't keep you from stopping down into softness..... this is a really bummer because I feel like the camera is weak when its too bright and weak when its too dark, it seems like it has a really finite zone it likes to behave well in.

    Flare, flare, flare, that's nasty and spotty, I see so many awful looking flares on XF100 content on the web and lots

    Single ring, this gets seen a lot it in in-expensive cameras, its nice to have 3 rings but... its $3000


    AG AC90 Pros (I have NOT tried the camera, just things I have noticed while trying to decided between the two like yourself)

    The camera is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP! A single project will pay for this camera so its hard to beat that $2000 price tag... the XF100 was known for its being inexpensive and great but the for the same price as the XF you could get the panasonic and an external recorder, or decent tripod, etc etc its a great value!

    Some kind of zero noise magic, although the image does soften I am amazed high clean this camera looks with high gain!!!!

    Some kind of stabilization magic, this thing really does have some great stabilization!

    It has 3 rings and a sharp image!

    AGAC90 Cons

    AVCHD, the editing problem has become less of an ordeal over the years as people have updated their machines, but the codec itself is still not great for acquisition. I mainly do web stuff now (with slr) and considering its almost always going to web and only ever getting a light grade in post the AVC has served me well.... however it has been pretty rough when trying to grade more dramatically shot material (though not much better then the XDcam35) and the compression is noticeable the odd time but clients seldom notice.... the 4:2:0 isn't as nice to key as the Canon BUT adobe premiere has some amazing ability for chroma key! If you do a lot of green screen you may love the Canon but honestly you could buy a ninja for the price of the Canon to go alongside the panasonic and recorded out the AC90's HDMI out a 4:2:2.... still 8 bit though I believe

    The 3 ringed lens barrel is as good as it sounds, according to Barry the gears are still digital (at least the zoom one) meaning that snap zooms are still a no-no

    NO waveform, no waveform........ no waveform........... bummer (again a AC90 & zacuto monitor/ small DP is about the same price as the canon soooo you could have those waveforms)



    Anyway that has been my long post, again I have only spent very little time with the Canon and none with the Panasonic... truthfully if I wasn't so interested in a new large chip camera (thinking fs700) I wouldn't buy either, I'd go a little more expensive (I have a thing for EX3) but truthfully I rarely need a camcorder as I don't do weddings/events/eng stuff at all really..... but for certain things (conferences, documentary) I would like to have a cheap one about... so I still cant decided but hopefully my research and findings help you in this hard process.

    They are both "cheap" but $2000-$3000 is still a lot of food/ rent/ mortgage so take your time.

    Also, this may not match the views and opinions of others but I'd like to avoid a slew of comments and counter arguments. Both cams are great, I want one as well, the more knowledge and discussion the more educated we are as buyers.

    Cheers


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Default
    Without going into all the technical "stuff" I lecture about at seminars as it relates to cameras. The XF-100 is grainy. Period. The AG AC-90 is NOT THAT GRAINY-albeit a pleasant softer in the higher Db range. DO NOT CONFUSE this DB range on the AC-90 or equate it to be equal to what we are accustomed to using GAIN settings-it is MUCH different with the PANNY vs. other cameras. In lower light, the GAIN setting increases but it appears to be a continuation of the IRIS setting after one is past the OPEN iris.

    The AC-90 is SHARPER under proper lighting. The glass in the Canon is probably better but the AC-90 makes electronic corrections thus minimal noise. The form factor of both is easy to handle.

    Both have scene files. The Panny is intuitive in that regard; unlike my XF-100 was. Stabilizer....much, much better than the XF-100. Picture quality: AC-90 resolves better for some magical reason in proper lighting-outdoors. The AC-90.... 17-21Mbs compared to 50Mps for the XF-100. My eyeballs can not tell a difference though it has much to do with broadcast specs. vs. personal viewing.

    Pricewise? The XF-100 does not produce a $1500 dollar BETTER picture.

    These are my personal thoughts and feel free to respectfully disagree. The more I use the AC-90, the better I like the picture quality. But, the user must be familiar with scene file settings and not rely on the default settings.


    Quote Originally Posted by Plazer View Post
    I know the question is not directed at me, however I have been considering a XF105 for several months and now the AG-AC90 has also caught my eye.

    There are many factors I like about both but I would like to point out some of the differences I have noticed while investigating the two.

    Lets start with why I wanted the XF100, price is a factor, I used to do work for tv and I became very comfortable with camcorders big and small. Because a steady job at a station was hard for me to find I switched to freelance, and switched to HDSLR, I missed using cameras like the Sony EX3 BUT myself and clients were excited about the look.... However over time I have noticed there are times when I want a camcorder, built in XLR, waveforms, servo-zooms etc etc... its nice for certain projects.

    XF100 pros (as seen by me & limited time trying the cam)

    The XF codec at 4:2:2 50mbs seemed like a great feature because there is always the chance I might do some broadcast stuff again, however the last place I was, was fine with XD cam 4:2:0 @ 35mbs.... however they insisted on 3 chip cameras..... so really "broadcast acceptable" is a place by place factor. If broadcast acceptability is one of the reasons you are looking into the XF100 it might now be as safe a route as you thought. However having that 4:2:2 is a nice feature regardless!!!

    The XF100 has a TON more recording formats than the AC90, this is great because sometimes people work in entirely 720p workflows, if you work for them its nice to match that (the AC90 does only 1080 & SD) It even has settings for 1440x1080 so if you work for other companies this could be a huge up for you! It also has timestamps if you do legal work.

    The XF105 Offers HD-SDI/Genlock etc etc.... again this, much like the mentioned above, may not be all that important if you only shoot web videos (or weddings/events) where you can just constantly use your same personal workflow.

    XF100 Cons (as observed by me)

    There is no 1920x1080 60p for high-speed..... you are still having to shoot 720p and upscale Brutal in this day and age.

    The noise is pretty noticeable, look at xf100-105 forums and that grain haunts every thread, the single sensor is tiny and just pours tone of noise at even 0db, sometimes compression hides it a bit but there are tons of places to download the native files and see for yourself. Now there are all kinds of picture settings available to help with this but overall, when I think of cameras in this price range I think of event people with lots of low light situations and this little sensor just needs light to look good, if you can light it I'm sure you will be happy... if you can't, watch out

    It looks pretty soft, the lens is not an L and it kinda shows compared to something like an XF300 or EX3, the native sized sensor is nice so there is not real aliasing/moire problems but its just not a sharp looking camera. I hate using SLR's on Deep wides, so that's one of the reasons I want a camcorder kicking around... I want those nice wide and deep focus shots and when I tested this alongside the DSLR footage I was bummed to see only a marginal difference, now I heard that one of the problems is diffraction, and that the built in ND'S just can't keep you from stopping down into softness..... this is a really bummer because I feel like the camera is weak when its too bright and weak when its too dark, it seems like it has a really finite zone it likes to behave well in.

    Flare, flare, flare, that's nasty and spotty, I see so many awful looking flares on XF100 content on the web and lots

    Single ring, this gets seen a lot it in in-expensive cameras, its nice to have 3 rings but... its $3000


    AG AC90 Pros (I have NOT tried the camera, just things I have noticed while trying to decided between the two like yourself)

    The camera is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP! A single project will pay for this camera so its hard to beat that $2000 price tag... the XF100 was known for its being inexpensive and great but the for the same price as the XF you could get the panasonic and an external recorder, or decent tripod, etc etc its a great value!

    Some kind of zero noise magic, although the image does soften I am amazed high clean this camera looks with high gain!!!!

    Some kind of stabilization magic, this thing really does have some great stabilization!

    It has 3 rings and a sharp image!

    AGAC90 Cons

    AVCHD, the editing problem has become less of an ordeal over the years as people have updated their machines, but the codec itself is still not great for acquisition. I mainly do web stuff now (with slr) and considering its almost always going to web and only ever getting a light grade in post the AVC has served me well.... however it has been pretty rough when trying to grade more dramatically shot material (though not much better then the XDcam35) and the compression is noticeable the odd time but clients seldom notice.... the 4:2:0 isn't as nice to key as the Canon BUT adobe premiere has some amazing ability for chroma key! If you do a lot of green screen you may love the Canon but honestly you could buy a ninja for the price of the Canon to go alongside the panasonic and recorded out the AC90's HDMI out a 4:2:2.... still 8 bit though I believe

    The 3 ringed lens barrel is as good as it sounds, according to Barry the gears are still digital (at least the zoom one) meaning that snap zooms are still a no-no

    NO waveform, no waveform........ no waveform........... bummer (again a AC90 & zacuto monitor/ small DP is about the same price as the canon soooo you could have those waveforms)



    Anyway that has been my long post, again I have only spent very little time with the Canon and none with the Panasonic... truthfully if I wasn't so interested in a new large chip camera (thinking fs700) I wouldn't buy either, I'd go a little more expensive (I have a thing for EX3) but truthfully I rarely need a camcorder as I don't do weddings/events/eng stuff at all really..... but for certain things (conferences, documentary) I would like to have a cheap one about... so I still cant decided but hopefully my research and findings help you in this hard process.

    They are both "cheap" but $2000-$3000 is still a lot of food/ rent/ mortgage so take your time.

    Also, this may not match the views and opinions of others but I'd like to avoid a slew of comments and counter arguments. Both cams are great, I want one as well, the more knowledge and discussion the more educated we are as buyers.

    Cheers
    Panasonic AG AC-130, Sony FDR-AX-100 4K,
    (Formely the Canon Xf-100 XF-300) SONY CX-150 GoPro HD-2 and Canon Hf S30.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Plazer View Post
    I know the question is not directed at me, however I have been considering a XF105 for several months and now the AG-AC90 has also caught my eye.
    That's great Plazer, this is a forum and open participation is welcome, besides I'm happy to engage with anyone with the same dilemma as me.

    I have not really used either of the cameras but I have studied them and their footage a lot, plus I had a chance to play with them at trade fairs so I could get a good feel about them.
    Originally I was all set on the XF100 (not the 105, don't really care about SDI), but then doubts came to my mind about the codec (which, by a convoluted array of reasons, means that I have to completely overhaul my computer system with new software/hardware to deal with and edit the footage), the cost of media (CF cards are roughly twice the cost of SD cards), and the fact that I would have to refurbish my kit with Canon-compatible gear (extra batteries, remote controls, filters etc.), whereas I would not have any of those problems with the Panasonic AC90. So it wasn't just the cost of the camera but everything else going along with it. The size also plays a factor but in reality the XF100 is quite a small camera and there is a risk of not being taken seriously with it. And in the end, technically (by EBU standards) the XF100 is still not fully broadcast because of the single CMOS, so I thought 'why bother'? It is however a great little camera and does have features (like infrared) that I actually would need.

    So I also thought about other alternatives like the Sony NX70 but again cost considerations would emerge similar to those of the XF100 (or more), and for unclear advantages.

    Then up came the AC90 and everything changed.

    Aside for cost concerns (in which the AC90 is a total winner with me and not just because of its mere price), I liked the size and the philosophy behind it: good professional features, not too fussy yet not cheesy, at a low price. People find it a prosumer camera but for me it's just a great value, low-end professional camera.

    By the way I have also trained on the X1R and find it a fantastic camera, but too expensive and bulky for what I need it for.

    The XF codec at 4:2:2 50mbs seemed like a great feature because there is always the chance I might do some broadcast stuff again... If broadcast acceptability is one of the reasons you are looking into the XF100 it might now be as safe a route as you thought.
    As I said above, the XF100 isn't really up to scratch with European HD TV standards, although many think most people would not notice if you told them you shot on an XF300.

    However having that 4:2:2 is a nice feature regardless!!!
    As you know the AC90 outputs a clean 8-bit 4:2:2 via HDMI and that is great news for me, as you said I can always buy and attach an external recorder, several are on offer and I think we'll see an increase in their number and a decrease of their cost over time. Obviously I'd rather a 4:2:2 native codec and not have to stick extra bits onto the camera, but hey it's only a $2,000 camcorder! Anyway I wouldn't do much green-screen or grading so it's a bit of a non-issue for me.

    The XF100 has a TON more recording formats than the AC90, this is great because sometimes people work in entirely 720p workflows...
    Hardly anyone uses 720p in Europe, except for sports perhaps. Everything has gone from SD to absolute full HD (at least in the northern countries) and what a pain it is sometimes. Even some corporates demand top notch 1080p when it's just for the web, which is ridiculous really.

    The noise is pretty noticeable...It looks pretty soft...its just not a sharp looking camera... I feel like the camera is weak when its too bright and weak when its too dark, it seems like it has a really finite zone it likes to behave well in...Flare, flare, flare.... Single ring...
    Thanks for that, that's all useful to know, and I agree about the single ring - mostly about the benefit of having three. What does not convince me is some of the footage from the XF100, it looks 'plasticy', there again you can never be sure because it depends on how it was shot, when and often the web compression makes everything soft and flat. However the AC90's footage does seem to have more of a 'bite' and slightly more warmth and depth, but image controls will play their part no doubt.


    AG AC90 Pros ... A single project will pay for this camera ...for the same price as the XF you could get the panasonic and an external recorder, or decent tripod, etc etc
    Absolutely totally agree and it is also what made me think about the AC90. Obviously if I could spend $10,000 I would look at something else, but I think below $5,000 the AC90 must be seriously considered.

    Some kind of zero noise magic... Some kind of stabilization magic
    I have seen a walking shot on a street and was totally amazed, this is a feature I actually really need for what I do.

    AVCHD, the editing problem has become less of an ordeal ... has served me well.... however it has been pretty rough ... BUT adobe premiere has some amazing ability for chroma key!
    How is it going for you with AVCHD in Premiere and what version are you using, may I ask?

    If you do a lot of green screen you may love the Canon but honestly you could buy a ninja for the price of the Canon to go alongside the panasonic and recorded out the AC90's HDMI out a 4:2:2.
    I don't do and probably won't do any green screen, but should I need to... you've already given yourself the answer!

    The 3 ringed lens barrel is as good as it sounds... snap zooms are still a no-no ....NO waveform, no waveform........ no waveform..
    I actually like the feel of the three rings, it's a bit stiff and that suits me just fine, and they're easy to identify when not looking. I don't do snap zooms, and I don't really use waveforms... I didn't even use vectorscopes in the days of Betacam, I use my eyes, and zebras if in doubt!


    They are both "cheap" but $2000-$3000 is still a lot of food/ rent/ mortgage so take your time.
    Been taking my time since last year! To be honest the only way would be to hire them both for a few days and try out a full workflow, including editing & mastering, but who's got the time/money to do that?

    Thanks for your comments, but have you also any other camera in mind in this price range?


    Cheers!
    Last edited by AlbertoT; 11-27-2012 at 03:46 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Bruno View Post
    The XF-100 is grainy. Period. The AG AC-90 is NOT THAT GRAINY

    The AC-90 is SHARPER under proper lighting.

    Both have scene files. The Panny is intuitive in that regard; unlike my XF-100 was. Stabilizer....much, much better than the XF-100. Picture quality: AC-90 resolves better for some magical reason in proper lighting-outdoors. The AC-90.... 17-21Mbs compared to 50Mps for the XF-100. My eyeballs can not tell a difference though it has much to do with broadcast specs. vs. personal viewing.

    Pricewise? The XF-100 does not produce a $1500 dollar BETTER picture.

    These are my personal thoughts and feel free to respectfully disagree. The more I use the AC-90, the better I like the picture quality. But, the user must be familiar with scene file settings and not rely on the default settings.
    Cheers for that Lou, and I am surprised you have found the XF100 to be grainy, and its scene files not intuitive. Can you elaborate on that?

    Good to know the AC90 is sharper in your experience. It is difficult to tell without actually having tried both. The magic in resolving detail could be the pixel-shifting done in 4K/4:2:2 space....

    I totally agree with judging picture quality with eyes rather than on paper. This is a sore issue for me with broadcasters, their rigidity annoys me. I have started my career with film, nobody would judge picture quality on the stock you used in those days (except perhaps that they would not accept Super8), and this 'tick the box' approach is even more debatable when it comes to software encoding. I still don't understand why Mpeg-2 (a codec from the 90's) at 50mbps should be better than H264 at 24mbps, when the latter is 10 years younger, more advanced and more than twice as efficient, and chosen as a standard for HD Blu-ray. At the end of the day is how a picture will look, you can have c**p looking stuff shot at 100mbps, and beautiful imagery on a slim 24mbps AVCHD, why should one be 'broadcast' and not the other because of mere technical specs instead of final image quality? I have seen beautifully shot documentaries on HDV being turned down for TV because they were...HDV, yet on screen they almost looked like film. Dumb TV bureaucrats....

    Interesting comment on the (lack of) picture quality difference for the extra $1,500. For me actually that is probably the most important. What about sound, how would you compare the two?

    The input from someone like you is invaluable, and point taken about the scene file, I thought so. What about actual use, what differences did you experience on the field with both cameras?

    Well, it seems we are establishing that the AC90 could be an alternative to the XF100, who would have thought that three months ago?

    Cheers!
    Last edited by AlbertoT; 11-27-2012 at 04:22 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertoT View Post
    How is it going for you with AVCHD in Premiere and what version are you using, may I ask?

    I use Production Premium CS5.5 ( no money to upgrade to 6) and I started with just CS5 when I first started doing AVCHD edits.

    On my desktop machine it is ZERO problem, just today I had a 27min edit will all kinds of graphics and layers playing back no problem with Encore, Photoshop, word and firefox open as well. It can sometimes buckle down when stuff gets REALLY big but for the average "under 15 mins" web video, I have no problems what so ever....

    On my laptop (MBP from late 2011.....2ghz i7 with 4 gigs of ram and the AMD Radeon HD 6490M, (and built in 3000)... it handles it fairly well, playback isn't as smooth but I have put together some pretty elaborate stuff (music videos) with just this machine and it works..... I wouldn't like putting together say a feature on it though... trans coding to something else makes it WAY better.... but you don't have to.
    Last edited by Plazer; 11-28-2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason: spelling error


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Plazer View Post
    I use Production Premium CS5.5 ...On my desktop machine it is ZERO problem
    What CPU/RAM/OS/Video card do you use and how would your system work with a 1-hour timeline? Can you output back to AVCHD without re-compressing? Have you ever transcoded to something else like Apple ProRes or others prior to ingest?


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •