| Author |
Message |
Rich
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:15 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:37:34 GMT, NunYa Bidness
<nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:07 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> Gave
us:
The "ONE" reference was half the god damn article, the several
paragraphs I quoted earlier in this thread, which you simply ignored.
One more time...
No. It referenced using different wattage bulbs, just like I said
NOT changing the wattage being sent to the bulb.
There was only ONE reference to actually changing the feed to a bulb.
All the rest (most of the article) was about using lower wattage bulbs
in place of the correct bulb requisite. That isn't the same as
turning one down, as was suggested by the OP.
That is not what the guy in the post said! Just like I said in my
first response. Nothing has changed.
Get some skull-o-sucktion done to thin out the skull, and make some
room in there.
|
Once upon a time, the studios and the theatre chains had
money. They could have introduced digital in a big way,
they could have produced better film showing devices or
at least used them as they should have been used. A live
projectionist to monitor problems that could occur with the automated
systems they have. But, they didn't do any of this.
Instead, they cheapened everything, right down to the poor development
of the film stock we often see now. THX-equipped theatres became a
joke, especially when you can actually hear the DIALOG from a movie
next door!
So what happened?
People flocked OUT of the theatres and to DVD when they realized they
could watch pristine copies of movies on their big home theatre
TVs.
Just as the TV networks dragged their feet on adopting digital and HD
and lost out to the cable companies, so too are the theatres now
paying the price. People have voted with their feet.
The studios and theatres are now getting EXACTLY what they deserve.
Greed f------ ass-----.
-Rich
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Black Locust wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1130158042.708106.292610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@AOL.com> wrote:
I go to matinees, take my own food in, the only people
there are normally retirees (a recent trend, I don't know what's going
on with that)
No, the only people there are losers in their mid 30s(usually male) who
have nothing to do but watch a movie at 12 noon on a Tuesday. Those of
us who have work, school or both have no time for such silliness.
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush
|
Man I cannot remember the last time I went to see a movie and the sun
still had not set?
Kinda like going to a bar before noon and ordering a shot of vodka!
BTW one more thing to think about (especially for those living in the
more dangerous parts of the world)crowded movies make good targets for
all those nutjobs out there now looking to go see Allah (While at the
sametime taking as many people as they can with them) so watching a dvd
could save your life! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NunYa Bidness
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:44:27 GMT, Mark Spatny
<vfxproducer@nospamh0tmail.com> Gave us:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:35:45 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com
wrote:
Beating HDTV is a bit tougher. I have seen broadcasts in which I
could tell you how many grams of grass is shoved into some player's
jersey... and the type of grass even.
HDTV is like a 2MP digital camera compared to 35MM. Not even close.
That's not really true.
Little known fact: If the film has gone through a Digital Intermediate
process (as do most most major studio films), then the full ap
negative is scanned and reduced to 2048x1556 resolution. The actual
part of the resultant scan that is eventually projected on a 1.85:1
movie ("Academy Safe") is a small part of that frame, and actually has
a slightly lower resolution than HD's 1920x1080 pixels. Most of the
resolution of film is thrown away. If you are just comparing pixels,
HD has film beat for a 1.85 movie.
The reason film wins over HD is because of the greater color depth and
dynamic range, a fact not well illustrated by your comparrison to 2MP
cameras.
|
Yeah... A 2 Megapixel camera is not that big an array. The
resultant frames are also converted from what got captured as well.
Doncha hate jpegs as well when you try to zoom in on one?
Gimmie a huge file size TIFF any day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NunYa Bidness
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:15:49 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> Gave us:
| Quote: | On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:37:34 GMT, NunYa Bidness
nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:07 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> Gave
us:
The "ONE" reference was half the god damn article, the several
paragraphs I quoted earlier in this thread, which you simply ignored.
One more time...
No. It referenced using different wattage bulbs, just like I said
NOT changing the wattage being sent to the bulb.
There was only ONE reference to actually changing the feed to a bulb.
All the rest (most of the article) was about using lower wattage bulbs
in place of the correct bulb requisite. That isn't the same as
turning one down, as was suggested by the OP.
That is not what the guy in the post said! Just like I said in my
first response. Nothing has changed.
Get some skull-o-sucktion done to thin out the skull, and make some
room in there.
Once upon a time, the studios and the theatre chains had
money.
|
They still do, they just don't know how to use it, or distribute it
correctly among the company's members.
| Quote: | They could have introduced digital in a big way,
they could have produced better film showing devices or
at least used them as they should have been used.
|
That is absolutely true. Had they embraced what we now know to be
they best method for storing what gets filmed, that being digital
mediums, We would / could have Film On Demand personal theaters where
customers do not need to view a film with 200 or more strangers, many
of which doing things you wouldn't do during a film screening. There
should be movie kiosks everywhere to watch a new release.
Digital delivery at the theater level, should have happened ten
years ago. Right around the same time as the advent of MPEG2.
| Quote: | A live
projectionist to monitor problems that could occur with the automated
systems they have. But, they didn't do any of this.
|
The don't even need that really.
| Quote: | Instead, they cheapened everything, right down to the poor development
of the film stock we often see now.
|
Within another ten years, well be "filming" in the digital realm.
Remember when CDs came out how there weren't many "DDD" discs
around? Check the numbers now.
| Quote: | THX-equipped theatres became a
joke, especially when you can actually hear the DIALOG from a movie
next door!
|
Yet they spent inordinate amounts of cash on the theater. You'd
think that they would be able to do a better job.
The execs wanted better toys. There is no middle class any more as
a result. We are getting screwed by industrial America. It ain't
like our wrists are chained to the production line, like in the
twenties, but it ain't far from it when the oil, cable, gas, and
electric, landlords get it all. You can bet they have nice houses.
| Quote: | People flocked OUT of the theatres and to DVD when they realized they
could watch pristine copies of movies on their big home theatre
TVs.
|
It's just plain cheaper. You get to keep the flic, and watch it
whenever you desire as well.
| Quote: | Just as the TV networks dragged their feet on adopting digital and HD
and lost out to the cable companies, so too are the theatres now
paying the price.
|
Actually, it was the cable companies that did most of the pissing and
moaning about HDTV. Their equipment upgrade costs were their reason.
TV stations get their gear bought by their network carrier.
| Quote: | People have voted with their feet.
|
The internet changed the way we shop for a lot of things. Digital
storage has as well.
| Quote: | The studios and theatres are now getting EXACTLY what they deserve.
|
I'm sure the studios are doing fine. The theaters are sliding, I'll
bet however.
Last week's new release takes were horrid.
The release of Star Wars on DVD will pulse millions back through
their veins though.
I'll bet Saw II does real good as well.
| Quote: | Greed f------ ass-----.
|
Damned shame I can't tell my landlord to eat shit and still stay
here. :-]
The oil companies are gouging mother fuckers though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Stasiak
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
| Quote: | John Harkness wrote
By the way, when you're in a theatre and the print's "a little
blurry", try complaining. They may send someone up to the booth
to adjust the focus.
|
Will the manager then re-wind the movie, so you can
see the parts you missed when you were tracking him
down and complaining about the blurry/dark picture,
garbled sound, broken chairs, screaming kids, idiots
with cell phones, ect, ect, ect?.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Anderson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:34 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1130131338.704245.199520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: | I remember thinking when I saw it in the theater that it was a little
blurry, a little grainy, kind of hard to follow the action.
|
Maybe the projectionist wasn't properly trained to use the equipment and
didn't know how to optimize the focus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Jones
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:22 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Mr. Anderson wrote:
| Quote: | "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1130131338.704245.199520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I remember thinking when I saw it in the theater that it was a little
blurry, a little grainy, kind of hard to follow the action.
Maybe the projectionist wasn't properly trained to use the equipment
and didn't know how to optimize the focus.
We used to have theater ushers who would be in the theater |
during the first 5 minutes or so of the movie to make sure
that people were seated and being quiet. They could also
see and hear whether the movie was being shown properly.
Ticket prices have gone up a lot, but now we do not have
anyone checking to make sure that the movie is being
shown properly. You don't have to experience problems
very many time before you just quit going. At least where
I go, I haven't seen any problems. It is an AMC 30 screen
theater with stadium seating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Anderson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
"Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in news:7IK8f.1758$m81.1672
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
| Quote: | Maybe the projectionist wasn't properly trained to use the equipment
and didn't know how to optimize the focus.
we do not have
anyone checking to make sure that the movie is being
shown properly. You don't have to experience problems
very many time before you just quit going.
|
The theatres seem to want to hire primarily high school kids for minimum
wage, which is no way to get qualified talent to operate advanced
electronic equipment.
Over the past couple of years I've seen several articles saying that
some really high-tech new projection equipment was on the way, to allow
downloading of films from servers at the production sites, via the
internet. I have no way to know whether they've ever been installed,
but I also have no reason to believe that they haven't, so I assume that
the technology is creeping along and will arrive sporadically at first
and five years late in the end.
A few years I tried to watch Callista Flockhardt in A Mid-Summer Night's
dream at a second run theatre, but there was some a really loud audio
problem that made it sound like a helicopter was landing. My guess was
that there was a loose contact somewhere between the signal output and
the input to the last amplifier stage. I got peeved, walked out and got
my money back, and I was amazed that the rest of the crowd seemed to be
sitting in the theatre and either hoping the problem would go away or
living with it. It completely destroyed the movie.
And this was a low tech system that they couldn't work. If they
couldn't get the low tech working, they'll surely have problems with
today's high tech systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaffo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
| Quote: |
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I noticed as I read down most of this thread that there were no
complaints about theaters that do not project Film but project digital
images from what I presume is some sort of DLP. Back in the mid
1990's I had a had heard that the some of the multiplex chains were
installing some type of Digital Satellite receiver and recorder
(optical Disc was the term I think) . That the movies in the future
were to be downloaded from Satellite and that if a movie had to be
changed for any reason it could be re-edited and over night the new
version could be distributed to all the theaters.
When I was younger I used to see trucks delver the film to the
theaters in cans that the reels of the movies were transported in. I
do not see that now. I do live in a Major metropolitan area with
Many Many theaters.
The last few movies I have seen at an actual theater were in some of
the brand new multiplex theaters that been built in the last 5 years.
The Movies have were not properly masked so we were treated to what
is called "Dot Crawl" at the bottom of the screen as well as some
Macroblocking mysterious green lines and a Washed out look, all of
which I have seen before on improperly set up TV's and Monitors.
The last movie I saw at a Theater was War of the Worlds and that again
was not a projected Film but some sort of DLP. The picture quality at
that theater was pretty good so I will be interested in the DVD
version to see how it compares.
Just my 2 cents worth FWIW
I, too, noticed the conspicuous absence of any mention of DLP, which,
e.g., seems particularly relevant to earlier-discussed issues of
old/scratched/rare film... and maybe relevant even to incompetent
projectionists.
|
I mentioned it in an earlier post in this thread.
| Quote: | Re DLP's quality, the argument has heretofore been
"DLP's not as good as film"... but that's increasingly turning into the
more mystical "DLP's *not* film".
|
black levels are getting better - still not as good a film (yet).
| Quote: | I know that, today, a 35mm frame does
carry more bandwidth... but a finger in the wind suggests the
approaching demise of that advantage. E.g., I think that Texas
Instruments recently released a 1080-line DLP chip vs. their previous
780(?)-line champ.
|
yep. new 1080 chip (really 540 but relecting tricks make it look like
1080).....just as the 480 line one I have (optoma H31) is really 240.
........the 1080 THREE chip dez has been out and used by commercial
theaters for a few yrs now. 30,000 grand or more.
only new thing is that TE is releasing a 1080 for consumer level TV
use........note there will still be a color wheel (i.e. one chip only).
Unlike the commercial theaters which use three chips (one each for R,G
and B).
I personally could care less, since BlueRay is 5 yrs away and a similar
Jon Jonhanson is probably 10 yrs away.
Note that DVD looks as good (better really) on a 480 DLP than a 720 one.
no scaling = better picture.
It seems plain to me that soon we'll be paying a
| Quote: | theater to see an exactly-like-DVD movie, but merely early, and
*possibly* at higher-res than we can afford to show at home.
|
yes probably higher rez than even BlueRay by next decade. i'd be
surprised if TE does not release a 2160 by then for commercial use.
............or maybe not. theaters may simply become extinct (in the
sence that there is no money to be made and so no new tech investment).
relagated to niche indie markets? (fine by me - I prefer
indie/international/animation films) we will see.
And,
| Quote: | though heretical, my belief is that (eventually anyway) nothing but
nostalgia will be lost...
|
yep.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed and so many professional athletes (who were
probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle
slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many
tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes
me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans
are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
--Colin Powell -his autobiography
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".
George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
In article <c8tol19uji5lou4kfiosh5h7eh8e65d41t@4ax.com>,
John Harkness <jharkness@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | On 23 Oct 2005 22:22:18 -0700, "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote:
I sat down this week-end and watched Batman Begins and was struck,
immediately, at how much clearer it looks on DVD at home than it did in
the theater. I don't have a AAA home theater set-up, but I have a nice
51" rear projection 16:9 set and Dolby Digital/DTS 6.1 surround.
I remember thinking when I saw it in the theater that it was a little
blurry, a little grainy, kind of hard to follow the action. I said to
myself back then "I wonder what it's going to look like on DVD?"
Turns out it kicks ass on DVD. Has anyone else had this experence? I
first noticed it back when the Brendan Frasier version of the Mummy
came out. I used to blame it on the projectionist (or lack of a trained
one), but now I'm not so sure.
- Jordan
Just out of curiosity, wen did you see it in its run -- film prints
don't have that opening weekend clarity for very long, and as theatres
don't have actual projectionists any more to maintain equipment and
prints, what you likely saw was a badly projected print.
The opening weekend print I saw had none of those characteristics.
By the way, when you're in a theatre and the print's "a little
blurry", try complaining. They may send someone up to the booth to
adjust the focus.
|
That's not limited to modern films. I was really surprised when I
saw Jaws in its first few weeks. There was process damage on the
print shown there with some sections have a purplish cast on one
side that sort of flickered in and out.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timeOday
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
| Quote: | What I could not put up with was distorted sound, on a dialog-driven
movie to boot. I complained to the projectionist, but he shrugged his
shoulders and said they knew about it but couldn't fix it. I demanded
my money back; in three or four months I'll see the show in comfort
for half the price.
|
What I dislike about film is the flicker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
In article <mh7ql11tnslgbrauotl46ep943h2knmp19@4ax.com>,
NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:29:41 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
curtin-dobbs@comcast.net> Gave us:
FWIW, when Siskel was alive, he and Ebert complained about not enough light
being thrown on the screen and they surmised that it was cheap multi-plex
owners trying to save $$.
I find it funny that folks would give credence to a couple of mere
critics of film content, that obviously knew little or nothing about
how things get done in the physical realm.
|
While back The Real Dwight Fripery posted a comment tht Kubrick
was said to have uttered when talking about critics. He was asked
his opinion of Ebert and was reported to have said "I thought
we were talking about critics not fools!".
True or not - it's a funny line.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
In article <g6s3m158ed55vemdut97uk6igja6kij4l0@4ax.com>,
NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:15:49 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> Gave us:
|
[hunks of text brutally hacked away by Lizzie Borden].
| Quote: | Once upon a time, the studios and the theatre chains had
money.
They still do, they just don't know how to use it, or distribute it
correctly among the company's members.
|
Has it not always been so - the money goes to those at the top and
when they want more money instead of trying to figure ways to
increase income they spend the same amount trying to reduce costs -
which often decreases income :-(
| Quote: | They could have introduced digital in a big way,
they could have produced better film showing devices or
at least used them as they should have been used.
That is absolutely true. Had they embraced what we now know to be
they best method for storing what gets filmed, that being digital
mediums, We would / could have Film On Demand personal theaters where
customers do not need to view a film with 200 or more strangers, many
of which doing things you wouldn't do during a film screening. There
should be movie kiosks everywhere to watch a new release.
|
One of the joys of watching a good movie with a good audience is
the shared reaction of lots of laughter and sometimes applause.
Last week there was applause after the showing of Good Night and
Good Luck. The audience was a bit older. It looked like
it could have been rated NC-50 :-)
| Quote: | Digital delivery at the theater level, should have happened ten
years ago. Right around the same time as the advent of MPEG2.
A live
projectionist to monitor problems that could occur with the automated
systems they have. But, they didn't do any of this.
The don't even need that really.
Instead, they cheapened everything, right down to the poor development
of the film stock we often see now.
Within another ten years, well be "filming" in the digital realm.
Remember when CDs came out how there weren't many "DDD" discs
around? Check the numbers now.
|
For modern recordings digital is much cheaper. At first it was
quite costly - and the big Sony 32-track digital would set you back
well over $125,000 which was twice as much as our Studer A-800.
But now you can get digital devices that record 24-tracks
simultaneously for under $3000. It's the old 'cheaper is better -
even when it isn't'. And a lot of disks were never properly
labeled in the early days.
And have YOU really checked CD's lately. I just checked a stack
and only about 1 in 10 have any labeling like that anymore. It was
a selling point at one time - and I bet most people would have no
clue what it means if you found a CD with it on it and pointed it
out to them.
.....
| Quote: | Actually, it was the cable companies that did most of the pissing and
moaning about HDTV. Their equipment upgrade costs were their reason.
|
And locally there is far more HDTV on cable than there is on the
air.
| Quote: | TV stations get their gear bought by their network carrier.
|
Since when. Locally one of the major network stations drops
some evening programming so they can show some locally run content
- as they make far more money selling local ads than they get paid
by the network.
.....
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
In article <GAa7f.1230$Lv.106@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
Cat_in_awe <rl3166pls@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Justin wrote:
Jim Reid wrote on [23 Oct 2005 23:20:53 -0700]:
There's another possiblilty. There's a theater chain here in Dallas
that I have caught turning the lamp power down on the projector when
it's not a full house. The picture looks dark and has what appears to
be lag in it. I go get the mangager and yell at him and a few minutes
later it brightens up.
The problem here is that, why should I pay my 8 bucks to then leave
the movie for 5 minutes and find someone who will listen to the
problem and then come fix it?
They should restart the thing from the start.
If you're in a good theatre chain they should give you a free ticket for
another show. We we watching In Her Shoes last weekend, the image started
flicking up and down on the screen for about 3-4 minutes. They stopped it,
fixed it and an usher came through the theater giving every patron a free
pass to see the next movie.
If you are an appreciable distance into the show, it wouldn't be feasible to
start it over if there is some technical difficulty. As far as dim bulbs
go, I've never felt I was in a theatre that was doing that.
BTW, I highly recommend AMC. At least in Atlanta, their theatres are
head-and-shoulders above any other chain in all aspects, including precise
sound and bright images.
|
Same in Orlando. The damn lobbies and hallways are so huge and
twisting you need a map. And there are two concession areas. One
serving the back 10 or so screens and another up front servicing
those.
It's diametrically opposed to the first multi-theatres where they'd
take a two screen complex and chop into six smaller venunes.
Locally one that had two screens - one with a large area and
another with a smaller but still decent sized area - split the big
one into 4 and the smaller one into two.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
In article <MPG.1dc70e142077b0fb989ac5@news.individual.net>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:27:34 GMT from Cat_in_awe <rl3166pls@excite.com>:
(when projection problems)
If you're in a good theatre chain they should give you a free ticket for
another show.
No, they should refund your money. What's the point of a coupon to
come back and see another underlit screening?
When I complained about garbled sound at the Fall Creek Cinema
(Ithaca) showing of /The Aristocrats/, they offered me a free pass
for another show. But since they had also told me they _couldn't_ fix
their sound, I couldn't see much point to coming back. So I insisted
on a refund.
I just don't understand it. DVDs are killing theaters, but instead of
fighting back with a better movie experience theater owners seem to
have given up.
|
Besides a better experience they need to have better movies instead
of remaking every TV show that has been seen in the last 30 years.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in