White balance on the run

Peter C. said:
The image quality and colors with RD3 is stunning if you can deal with the rest of it.
Click to expand...
This attribute caught my attention which points to a bright future in the space. Some high quality noise reduction applied in-camera for the RAW files along with being in a capable stills camera would be a nice combination. But not yet.
 
sounds like you made the right decision. For paid work non sexy tried and true is usually the way to go.

If you watch first reaction type videos they all make you think that the new camera is so much better.

It be nice if the cameras had a 1-10 setting for noise reduction and sharpening and 3 levels of bitrate so you dial in what you want.
 
Peter C. said:
sounds like you made the right decision. For paid work non sexy tried and true is usually the way to go.

If you watch first reaction type videos they all make you think that the new camera is so much better.

It be nice if the cameras had a 1-10 setting for noise reduction and sharpening and 3 levels of bitrate so you dial in what you want.
Click to expand...
The hype surrounding this camera has been unbelievable. The influencers are in full force. There were only a few YTers who were critical: Gerald Undone, Josh Sattin and Cined. Who is Matt had a decent review. I mean, I fell for the hype, too. Not that it's a bad camera and you do get a lot for its price. But for paid work there are just too many caveats.
 
So many cameras have been hyped for years. Maybe it's fresh for you and you did extra research on this one more than others, but they've hyped so many models, so hard.

As far as that note about the ergonomics and buttons, I think Fujifilm are the worst with that (not image, but actual software and hardware choices) followed by Nikon.

Using Canon bodies and menus brings me a lot of joy.

Blackmagic took after ARRI for simplicity but made it very attractive with their GUI (the prettiest).

I used to like Sony's old menus but don't like the new ones (or some of them), I think they clutter them too much, but think their ergonomics were always pretty fantastic and they were so far ahead of everyone with customization and smart button and dial choices for a handful of years.
 
I must be getting old. This is a bit of a rant.

I get a little frustrated when I see all these cameras coming out touting all sorts of benefits of their “RAW” implementations. There is a bit of snake oil going on here. Many people get somewhat confused by the pro and cons of Raw vs Log encoding. Thinking that these massive bit rates associated with these new cameras must be good. “If it's bigger, it must be better? No? Yes?” So please excuse and indulge me if what I am about to say is already known to many of you. But for newcomers to the world of video, it's maybe of some help to try to sort out the snake oil from the facts and clarify the differences between Raw and Log.

A lot has happened in the twenty or so years since the introduction of Raw cinemas cameras.

In those twenty odd years' resolution has increased, new codes have been introduced, compression techniques have improved, and the distance between Raw quality and processed video has gotten less and less. So much so that, Arri will say that Apple ProRes 4:4:4 is, and I quote, “Is almost indistinguishable from uncompressed (RAW) UHD material.” And Apple states that ProRes 4:4:4 is “...virtually indistinguishable from HQ 4:2:2.” Does this mean that Arri Raw is visually indistinguishable from ProRes HQ 4:2:2 video? Well…basically, yes. That's what Arri and Apple are saying.

Raw is all about color. Raw does not capture more physical detail; that is a function of resolution. Nor does Raw capture more dynamic range; a camera that has a dynamic range of 10 stops in a processed image will have 10 stops in the Raw image. It’s the use of a LOG format that increases the dynamic range to 12 stops (as an example). Raw doesn’t produce smoother highlights or blacker-blacks, either. With Raw, it’s the amount of color information that increases, specifically to 12 or 16 bit, and 4:4:4. Why isn’t 12 bit nicer to look at? Because our eyes can’t see that level of chroma variation, and our screens are most likely 8 bit. Unless you have a true 10-bit screen.

10 bits produces far more color variance than our screens need, providing plenty of headroom when it comes to manipulating an image in post. The question becomes, “When are the extra colors more than we can use?” There’s a point when the images, even under extreme grading conditions, will be identical regardless of how many more bits we throw at it. How much is more than enough? 8-bit footage has 256 shades of red that cover the full range of the red spectrum. Spread out over 100% of the spectrum, each “shade” is roughly 0.4% apart on the spectrum. This isn’t exactly correct due to gamma curves, etc., but the truth of the matter is the human eye isn’t able to see chroma differences that are smaller than 1%, so the image appears smooth… without bands. Sure, if we add a lot of contrast, the differences between each shade becomes greater than 1%, and the shade steps becomes noticeably abrupt. A 10-bit sensor has over a thousand shades of red across the range, each is less than 0.1%, that's 1/10th of a percent from each other. In those terms, it’s easy to see why it’s much harder to “break” a 10-bit image into bands. Twelve bits, with over 4,000 data points for each color, is essentially not distinguishable…or visible to the human eye. According to Arri and Apple. Check their quotes below, links supplied.

Remember, when filming in LOG, all the data is acquired, regardless of whether you’re filming in HD, 4K, or 8K. Charles Poynton, one of the leading experts in the field of color, he (and others) will tell you that cameras can fit 99% of 12-bit Raw file data into a 10-bitLOG file. Also remember Raw is exactly that, “raw” it doesn't have the ability to carry lens peripheral correction data, CA and Coma correction data. All being very important features if you want to extract the most pristine images you can get out of your cameras when using the proprietary OEM lenses that offer these correction functions.

QUOTE FROM ARRI:

“Top of the line codec.

Recording clips in Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves the full sensor quantisation in logarithmic encoding, with the same range of colors available in ARRIRAW. Images recorded in a 4:4:4 codec are almost indistinguishable from uncompressed HD or UHD material. This makes internal recording attractive to feature film productions for the big screen, too. Recording in any of the high-end 4:2:2 codecs provides perfect source material for web or TV applications.”

https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/...tproduction/file-formats-data-handling/prores

The takeaway from the above ARRI quote is the statement: “Recording clips in Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves the full sensor quantisation in logarithmic encoding, with the same range of colors available in ARRIRAW.” Note: The same range of colors.

Okay, so what does Apple say about ProRes 4444 XQ

QUOTE FROM APPLE:

“Apple ProRes 4444 XQ: The highest quality version of ProRes for 4:4:4:4 image sources (including alpha channels), with a very high data rate to preserve the detail in high dynamic range imagery generated by today’s highest quality digital image sensors. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves dynamic ranges several times greater than the dynamic range of Rec. 709 imagery, even against the rigours of extreme visual effects processing, in which tone scale blacks or highlights are stretched significantly. Like standard Apple ProRes 4444, this codec supports up to 12 bits per image channel and up to 16 bits for the alpha channel. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ features a target data rate of approximately 500Mbps for 4:4:4 sources at 1920 x 1080 and 29.97 fps.”

https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes.pdf

The BIG takeaway from this for me is that all of the above benefits can be obtained at 500Mbps, without having to resort to the crazy big bit rate storage values we are seeing in some of the newer Raw implementations that are being delivered in recent mirrorless camera releases. Especially when these cameras technically can't even deliver the dynamics to make best use of the Raw and even the Log implementations these cameras come with.

I think I have said enough. Rant over!

Chris Young
 
Chris - I dont really know what to say!

1) my 14bit photos in capture one feel malleable.

(I will often export 2 varients and sandwhich them together)

2)most 'colourists' dont really seem to to much bending like a stills tog would

3) most youtuber dont show or appear to know the value of a raw file or try and show it

4) what are the data rates on proress 444? .. higher than raw?

5) quantisation kicks in when one records 14stops into a 7 stop wrapper (log into 709) and then try and un fungle the 14 stops you recoreded

6) I gripped on a holiday company advert last month.. we used a motorised slider to make a second pass exposed for the sky.. so someone thinks the cameras doint have enough DR (shooting stills on this scene I would have made two exposures, room, seaview)

7) Peter C at davinci told me the raw tab doesnt matter.. its just bending the file like the other tabs.. in the 32bit space (huge)

8) I seeme to be able to bend my R6 and C200 footage a long way

9) my Osmo 'log' is not so bendable.
 
Of all the "reviews" Josh Sattin was the only one who explained who this camera is for and the huge R3D NE bit-rates. I misspoke before.
6k60 is 3780 mbps or 18 minutes 512gb card
6k24 is 1520 mbps or 45 minutes

This camera only makes sense when you understand Nikon is using this low cost camera to entice people into RED eco system. Because it's a small range finder style camera with a big flippy screen that would be good for vlogging, travel and content creation. The codec wouldn't be of use to those people so its just to get people excited about having the ability to buy a camera with RED technology (ironically that they wouldn't use).

This isn't a cinema camera and it isn't even meant to be a competitor or suitable replacement to the FX3. Nikon doesn't want to directly compete against Sony FX, they have the higher end Reds and then their hybrid mirrorless which this is just another one.

The review video are so slanted to intentionally paint as positive picture as possible.
 
Peter C. said:
Of all the "reviews" Josh Sattin was the only one who explained who this camera is for and the huge R3D NE bit-rates. I misspoke before.
6k60 is 3780 mbps or 18 minutes 512gb card
6k24 is 1520 mbps or 45 minutes

This camera only makes sense when you understand Nikon is using this low cost camera to entice people into RED eco system. Because it's a small range finder style camera with a big flippy screen that would be good for vlogging, travel and content creation. The codec wouldn't be of use to those people so its just to get people excited about having the ability to buy a camera with RED technology (ironically that they wouldn't use).

This isn't a cinema camera and it isn't even meant to be a competitor or suitable replacement to the FX3. Nikon doesn't want to directly compete against Sony FX, they have the higher end Reds and then their hybrid mirrorless which this is just another one.

The review video are so slanted to intentionally paint as positive picture as possible.
Click to expand...
I agree, Peter. I've owned a Komodo and sold it not because it wasn't a great camera (with a lot of quirks) but it just didn't fit my workflow. But the ZR feels like a cheat. They're really pushing it by slapping a Red raw codec on a mid sensor and calling it a Red cinema camera... If I was a die-hard Red user I would probably be pissed about the Nikon-Red acquisition. There's no way in my mind they're ever going to go back to the production methods pre-Nikon, which includes the way the sensors were produced. A Red cinema camera is more than just the codec - it is strongly influenced by the organic nature of the sensor.
 
scorsesefan said:
If I was a die-hard Red user I would probably be pissed about the Nikon-Red acquisition. There's no way in my mind they're ever going to go back to the production methods pre-Nikon, which includes the way the sensors were produced. A Red cinema camera is more than just the codec - it is strongly influenced by the organic nature of the sensor.
Click to expand...
I'd actually go the other way in regards to Nikon's acquisition of RED.

I don't think we get things like a RED V-Raptor XE, or the ZR, without Nikon's backing. RED was just too small of a company to operate on the scale needed to offer products at the price point that Nikon can.
 
morgan_moore said:
Chris - I dont really know what to say!

1) my 14bit photos in capture one feel malleable.

(I will often export 2 varients and sandwhich them together)

2)most 'colourists' dont really seem to to much bending like a stills tog would

3) most youtuber dont show or appear to know the value of a raw file or try and show it

4) what are the data rates on proress 444? .. higher than raw?

5) quantisation kicks in when one records 14stops into a 7 stop wrapper (log into 709) and then try and un fungle the 14 stops you recoreded

6) I gripped on a holiday company advert last month.. we used a motorised slider to make a second pass exposed for the sky.. so someone thinks the cameras doint have enough DR (shooting stills on this scene I would have made two exposures, room, seaview)

7) Peter C at davinci told me the raw tab doesnt matter.. its just bending the file like the other tabs.. in the 32bit space (huge)

8) I seeme to be able to bend my R6 and C200 footage a long way

9) my Osmo 'log' is not so bendable.
Click to expand...
MM.

What you are saying about your 14 bit images, I totally agree with. With stills, one has the luxury of working on an individual image and squeezing the best you can get out of it. With fast moving video, I don't have to tell you that 99% of us don't have the luxury of time to process individual frames in a video sequence. Other than in Roto work where certain frame by frame reworking is required, such as wire removal etc.

Though the number of times I've exported and re-imported video files as images sequences to fix dropouts, artifacts, blemishes etc number in the multiple hundred over the years.

From a practical point. Most of the RAW I have brought to me today is either BRAW or ProRes RAW, mainly shot on Sony cameras. Along with some Canon and Nikon NRAW footage. In many cases, I have to work with this footage on a timeline in conjunction with Sony XAVC or Canon XFAVC files.

I can only make definitive, objective judgements on what I actually work on. Any other judgements are purely subjective. What I am finding in many instances is that the Sony and Canon LOG files, XAVC and XFAVC when exposed within reason offer plenty of range to work with and carry the benefits of in camera corrections, less noise and better post highlight control due to their LOG curves.

So the following are my experiences with the FX6, FX9 and still a few FS7s, yes. FS7s, still being used quite extensively. As this is where a lot of my incoming edit material is coming from, along with footage from A7Siii and FX3 models. Followed by some Canon EOS 70 and 80 footage. My finding are basically the same as CineD's findings when it comes to XAVC LOG material vs ProRes RAW. Check their link below. Take note of their comments on the aspects of the 12 bit RAW in regard to recovery in shadows.

With the current crop of Sony cams, I much prefer to grade their LOG files over either of the two RAW files available to those cameras. Those being the external recordings of BRAW and ProRes RAW. Why? Primarily because in Resolve they generate quieter files along with the benefit of their in camera CA corrections incorporated. CA errors are much, much harder to correct in post vs the efficiency of in camera firmware at time of acquisition. Resolve is able to recover more in highlight detail in those lower bit rate LOG files than either of the two RAW formats I mention. Generally I find Sony and Canon AVC based LOG files are easier and quicker to get good results out of, and importantly faster to turn around. Just more efficient overall in my experience.

Incidentally, Resolve now allowing access via its SONY RAW tab for corrections when editing Sony FX6 XAVC S-LOG 3 files makes things even quicker. Yes, Sony RAW controls over S-LOG footage. Between Blackmagic and Sony they have somehow configured a way to access to the 10 bit RAW information that is stored within the Sony LOG encoded files. All sensor information starts as RAW. Resolve's SONY RAW tab appears, to all intents and purposes, to control that 10 bit RAW information stored within those S-LOG 3 files.

Chris Young

CINED QUOTE ON SONY FX6 LOG VS RAW:

"Hence, we can conclude the following:

From the results we can conclude about 8 stops of exposure latitude. The externally recorded ProRes RAW HQ files show more noise than the internally recorded XAVC- I files. Strange, but true, the ProRes RAW HQ files do break up at the 5 stops underexposed, pushed back mark. Although those are 12bit – in theory, pushing up shadows with a 12bit codec should yield better results. Not so because of the noise. The internally recorded XAVC-I 4:2:2 10bit files at 5 stops of underexposure and pushed back to base can still be saved by noise reduction. They are at the cusp of breaking but still OK."

https://www.cined.com/sony-fx6-lab-test-external-prores-raw-vs-internal-xavc-intra/


About Apple ProRes

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102207

About Apple ProRes RAW
QUOTE:

"Apple ProRes RAW is based on the same principles and underlying technology as existing ProRes codecs, but is applied to a camera sensor’s pristine RAW image data rather than conventional image pixels. ProRes RAW brings to RAW video the same great performance, quality, and ease of use that ProRes has brought to conventional video, in a format ideal for high-dynamic-range (HDR) content creation in Final Cut Pro.

https://images.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_RAW_White_Paper.pdf

ProRes RAW data rates benefit from encoding Bayer pattern images that consist of only one sample value per photosite. Apple ProRes RAW
data rates generally fall between those of Apple ProRes 422 and Apple ProRes 422 HQ, and Apple ProRes RAW HQ data rates generally fall between those of Apple ProRes 422 HQ and Apple ProRes 4444, as shown in the chart below."
 

Attachments

  • Apple ProRes-ProRes RAW data rates.JPG
    Apple ProRes-ProRes RAW data rates.JPG
    65.5 KB · Views: 0
Thanks for your perspective Chris. LOG files do have a lot of leeway. I just dislike starting in the gray and needing to pick LUTs etc... Not the deal breaker though. While I am sure the bit rates are already optimized but it sounds like in practice, a 400-500 Mbps LOG codec would offer the optimum. For Nikon, it would seem they could incorporate the RED color look into non-RAW codecs. But some part of the great look of the ZR in RAW mode has to be the huge amount of data being recorded. Whatever comes about, this recent camera is a large step forward for the little cameras. Showing how much is possible on mid-level sensor/body hardware. It can only get better from here.
 
cyvideo said:
What you are saying about your 14 bit images, I totally agree with. With stills, one has the luxury of working on an individual image and squeezing the best you can get out of it.
Click to expand...

Even in my professional stills work I tend to work up one file and paste that onto the rest of the set. So this quote makes little sense to me.

The time in grading/retouching is spent on secondaries.

--

We dont really disagree but my FS7 (yes I use it too SLog2) 'feels' thin vs my C200 - not suprising with half the data rate.

Im well convinced that the 600mbs codecs on the better sonys (Burito) are great if 'raw' or not.

As for atmos recording the garbage that comes out of a hole in the back of a camera.. I dont find that relevant

CineD Jonnie and has 'base exposure' .. what a joker.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Thanks for your perspective Chris. LOG files do have a lot of leeway. I just dislike starting in the gray and needing to pick LUTs etc... Not the deal breaker though. While I am sure the bit rates are already optimized but it sounds like in practice, a 400-500 Mbps LOG codec would offer the optimum. For Nikon, it would seem they could incorporate the RED color look into non-RAW codecs. But some part of the great look of the ZR in RAW mode has to be the huge amount of data being recorded. Whatever comes about, this recent camera is a large step forward for the little cameras. Showing how much is possible on mid-level sensor/body hardware. It can only get better from here.
Click to expand...
B.M. I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.

I'm just trying to put things into perspective for your average jobbing shooter / editor who have questions. As an old fart, I often get asked questions by young camera ops and editors.

Sony's O-XCN is 16-bit linear, massive depth. Arri's RAW is 12-bit. Apple's ProRes RAW is 12bit.

Color depths 10-16 bit.

10-bit - 1,024 colours (Sony XAVC S-LOG 3 for a comparison)
12-bit - 4,096 colours
16-bit - 65,536 colours

Now tell me. Do you see a massive quality difference between the two clips, linked below, admittedly on web delivery, where a lot of the world is these days. Both well graded. One with a lot of Promist filtering. One shot on primes and the other predominantly on two zooms. Now consider the end viewing results whilst remembering the difference in their original capture formats. Their original data depth differences were between 12-bit ProRes 444 and 16-bit O-XCN. One using a color palette of 4,096 colors and the other a palette of 55,535 colors? The answer is probably not. And these were two pretty big budget productions. I, for one, am pretty happy with the color off both productions.

The question for most of us is, "Do I need massive data rates and amazing bit depths to get great color graded results?" No, is the most likely answer, at least in the bulk of cases. BTW, both the cameras used in the following clips use DCI P3 color filter arrays. One of the reasons these cameras have a "look" to them is they are designed to deliver to the DCI color gamut standard for a DCI cinema delivery environment. Not 709 color TV, or 2020 HDTV color spaces for that matter.

One can change "the look" using LUTs. Someone else's preset. But if you are working with RAW and LOG the most accurate and best way to extract the optimum color and depth out of your footage is to use Color Transforms in conjunction with a wide dynamic intermediate. Or ACES if delivering for theatre DCI delivery. Using transforms is maths based interpretation. Using LUTs is RGB value manipulations. I love LUTs for VF monitoring and on set monitors. Very rarely do I used them in end delivery. One workflow is pretty transparent and one is technically called 'destructive', but it's very efficient and quick. Not saying LUTs aren't incredibly useful. They are, from set to post.

To get to the highest quality grade do the technical maths grade first, then create your "end style look" delivery LUT if a certain "style" is desired.

There are massive color tonal ranges differences between the original 12 and 16-bit captures, shown below. Do they look massively different? Bar the Promist aesthetics on The Crown clips. I don't think so. Make your own judgement calls.

Just saying! :)

Chris Young

Billions TV Series
ARRI alexa Plus - 2K ProRes 4:4:4 12-bit on SxS Pro cards @ 500Mbps @ 800 ISO


The Crown TV Series
Sony F55 and Venice - 4K 16-bit X-OCN (R5 and R7 recorders) @ 688Mbps Mostly 500 ISO (Dropped from the F55's base 1250 ISO in this trailer)

 
I actually prefer the color fidelity in the Billions show even though its technically less. (probably the Arri) But yes the both look great due to many reasons. But for these sub $10,000 cameras (especially sub $5,000) what is the optimum? Clearly the Red RAW implementation looks better than the others in the Nikon but as you state, is that overkill to achieve the same results? We already have 10 bit compressed MP4 which do the job. The question for me is can that be improved by a bit rate increase rather than a color bit depth increase? Can Nikon make the "Red" look without the use of RAW?

We all are around images all of the time. There are certain intangibles when you see high bit rate/depth material. Nothing is strained or working too hard to deliver excellence. While the 150Mbps codecs are bread and butter I think it would be nice to have an option to grab some more intangibles for certain jobs if warranted.
 
scorsesefan said:
Are you buying the ZR, Dustin? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it...
Click to expand...
The ZR isn't a camera for me, although it certainly looks interesting. Mostly due to a few specific reasons:

I shoot mostly on Canon hybrid cameras, with my primary hybrid being an R5C. The ZR is completely out of that ecosystem of lenses, color, etc.

Although I could adapt my EF mount and PL mount lenses to the ZR, I look to my hybrid cameras for autofocus and small size, as well as stills capture. The ZR isn't an ideal small hybrid for me based on those reasons.

I do own a Komodo, and the ZR could make a really great small B or C camera to the Komodo. But I've actually been shooting more on other systems I own than the RED lately. I keep the Komodo because I don't think I can really get the value out of it through resale at this point that I can get by just keeping it and using it when needed.

I'm honestly more interested to see what Canon is releasing tomorrow, rumors say R6 Mark III???, because although the C50 looked really great from a video standpoint, it's lack of a physical shutter and inability to trigger strobes made it a nonstarter for me.
 
Last edited:
DustinSchmidt said:
The ZR isn't a camera for me, although it certainly looks interesting. Mostly due to a few specific reasons:

I shoot mostly on Canon hybrid cameras, with my primary hybrid being an R5C. The ZR is completely out of that ecosystem of lenses, color, etc.

Although I could adapt my EF mount and PL mount lenses to the ZR, I look to my hybrid cameras for autofocus and small size, as well as stills capture. The ZR isn't an ideal small hybrid for me based on those reasons.

I do own a Komodo, and the ZR could make a really great small B or C camera to the Komodo. But I've actually been shooting more on other systems I own than the RED lately. I keep the Komodo because I don't think I can really get the value out of it through resale at this point that I can get by just keeping it and using it when needed.

I'm honestly more interested to see what Canon is releasing tomorrow, rumors say R6 Mark III???, because although the C50 looked really great from a video standpoint, it's lack of a physical shutter and inability to trigger strobes made it a nonstarter for me.
Click to expand...
I recently sold my Komodo, Dustin. I actually got back close to what I paid for it (I bought at $2995) so I guess I got lucky. For the price the ZR offers a lot, but comparing the ZR to the Komodo the K just has a thicker image and way more DR. I guess it's a tradeoff because as you know the K has a lot of quirks and is slow to use... I was looking at the c50, too, but (as discussed) I'm just not a fan of Canon's new look. I really haven't seen anything coming out of this camera that has been mind blowing...
 
scorsesefan said:
I recently sold my Komodo, Dustin. I actually got back close to what I paid for it (I bought at $2995) so I guess I got lucky. For the price the ZR offers a lot, but comparing the ZR to the Komodo the K just has a thicker image and way more DR. I guess it's a tradeoff because as you know the K has a lot of quirks and is slow to use... I was looking at the c50, too, but (as discussed) I'm just not a fan of Canon's new look. I really haven't seen anything coming out of this camera that has been mind blowing...
Click to expand...
I paid $5400 for a used Komodo back in May of '23. Then I picked up various add-on's etc. to build out a working package that probably amounted to another couple of grand.

I've certainly got my use out of it in the years since, so I still consider it a good purchase. But I'm reluctant to turn and sell everything now for just a couple of thousand dollars when I can still rent it out on the occasions that I need what it can offer.

I'm not usually one to hang on to "old" tech, but I've found that the gear I have in my possession right now can still get the job done at a high level. It's cliche to say, but almost everything you can buy nowadays is REALLY good, but more importantly has been for years now.

Lately I've been spending more of my time researching and finding gear that can improve my workflows, or make life on set easier or faster or lighter for that matter.

Sometimes that can indeed involve a new camera, so I'm always paying attention to what's out there and being released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top