Tease, new Prismasonic cylindrical lens and remote motorized sled. - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 608 Old 06-18-2011, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
quack724's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Can someone please validate my understanding..

Background: I plan to go CIH for my next set up. Projector not chosen yet.
I am tentatively thinking of Seymour AT 2.37 fixed frame, Carada CIH masking, Prismasonic 6000RX. I mostly watch more relatively modern films (late 70s & onward) and few classics.

I've read other 2.35 vs 2.37 vs 2.40 threads and what I took away (within the context of 1.33x HE A-lens),

1) Fitting (overscanning) a 2.35 movie on a 2.40 screen means you would be cutting off the top and bottom
2) fitting a 2.40 movie to fit 2.35 screen means cutting off the sides.

Question #1) Does that mean a 2.37 screen would be the "middle ground" where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a 2.40 movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?

Question #2) Per Anssi's response, 1.35x should be a non issue with 2.37?

Question #3) If the answer to question #1 is "yes," I think I would be OK with that. Would my tentative proposed configuration as I described above require me to fumble with zooming every time I watch a 2.3x AR film? If yes, is there a cost effective solution where I can just pop in a 2.3x film and not have to fumble with zooming?

Thanks in advance..


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
quack724 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 06:04 AM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by quack724 View Post

...
Question #1) Does that mean a 2.37 screen would be the "middle ground" where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a 2.35 movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?

If you mean "...where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a 2.40 movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?"

Assuming CIH, then yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quack724 View Post

Question #2) Per Anssi's response, 1.35x should be a non issue with 2.37?

A non-issue. But that's JMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quack724 View Post

Question #3) If the answer to question #1 is "yes," I think I would be OK with that. Would my tentative proposed configuration as I described above require me to fumble with zooming every time I watch a 2.3x AR film? If yes, is there a cost effective solution where I can just pop in a 2.3x film and not have to fumble with zooming?

Seems like you could adjust your zoom (and shift) one time to the best fit for your mix of ARs - 1.78->2.40 - and be done with it. If your screen frame has good light absorption, it should absorb any spill. I think that you'd want to avoid any bars or pillars with whatever AR you're watching.
SteveHorn is offline  
post #453 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 08:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
quack724's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Thanks SteveHorn. I corrected my typo.

Yes, my ultimate goal is to avoid any bars or pillars with whatever AR. I won't have quad masking so i think i'd be out of luck for a film like Ben Hur but I can live with the exceptions. Hopefully I can adjust the zoom and shift one time like you said and be done.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
quack724 is offline  
post #454 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
From what I've read, Ben Hur (2.76:1!) is certainly the exception. How The West Was Won on BD was another. Based on what I've seen and rented via Netflix, 2.35:1 is far and away the most common AR for 'scope films. (There must be a way to look at imdb or wherever and sort by AR but I don't know what it is. It'd be a good exercise in gee-whiz to see how ARs are distributed. There are probably even those stats here on AVS somewhere, under a post called "Insanely Wide Films".)
SteveHorn is offline  
post #455 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 06:20 PM
Member
 
swim4519's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey guys. So these last couple of pages have been interesting on the aspect ratio discussion with the 1.33 vs 1.35. The question I have now is, I was about to place an order for a 130" diag 2.35:1 Stewart screen, and I am concerned that since they tested with 2.40 screens in mind, that the distortion on a 2.35:1 will be worse!?!?

Thoughts?
swim4519 is offline  
post #456 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 07:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by swim4519 View Post

Hey guys. So these last couple of pages have been interesting on the aspect ratio discussion with the 1.33 vs 1.35. The question I have now is, I was about to place an order for a 130" diag 2.35:1 Stewart screen, and I am concerned that since they tested with 2.40 screens in mind, that the distortion on a 2.35:1 will be worse!?!?

Thoughts?

That is not the case for me with this lens and a 2.35:1 screen.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #457 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 07:18 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
The "distortion" produced by this lens will be the same regadless of the screen size. The screen will have nothing to do with the distortion. It's a receptor. I can't say I agree with their choice to make the horizontal expansion 1.4+ when the vertical produced by every commercial scaler is 1.33 .


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #458 of 608 Old 06-19-2011, 11:56 PM
Member
 
bigjas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It also appeared very odd to me but " non linear " expansion appears to be one of the reasons (covered in a level of technical detail that is well beyond my level of knowledge).
I would be interested to hear balanced opinions of the manufacturers of other 1.33 lenses eg Isco on the non linear issue but that's unlikely to be happening here. I'm still unsure whether this is a deal breaker for me given my TR is about 1.9 I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prismasonic View Post

1.35 * expand has been designed due to very rational reason. Every anamorphic lens has a non - linear expand from center to sides. This linearity is dependent on the throw ratio. Lets take throw ratio of around 2 as an example which may be a pretty common value at HTs. With a 1.33 x lens around 50% of the area at the horizontal center of picture has not 1.33x expand but rather average 1.31x. With 1.35x lens this center area is very close to 1.33x (average). So this is a matter of taste wheter you want center of the picture having a correct expand or the sides. We preferred center in our design.

bigjas is offline  
post #459 of 608 Old 06-20-2011, 12:35 AM
Newbie
 
Suza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@bigjas
Some information regarding expansion copied from a review comparing the CrystalMorphic 5E1 and the ISCO IIIL at a TR of 1.65. Would have been interesting seeing results with a longer TR as well for more balanced results.

--------------------------------------

"The target expansion for the lens is 1.33, here's how the measurements came out:

SCREEN POSITION 5E1 ISCO
Center expansion: (1.30x) (1.27x)
Midpoint expansion: (1.32x) (1.27x)
Side expansion: (1.36x) (1.42x)"

Here is the link to the review:

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/reviews.html
Suza is offline  
post #460 of 608 Old 06-20-2011, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Moggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 1,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
"The target expansion for the lens is 1.33, here's how the measurements came out:

SCREEN POSITION 5E1 ISCO
Center expansion: (1.30x) (1.27x)
Midpoint expansion: (1.32x) (1.27x)
Side expansion: (1.36x) (1.42x)"

Here is the link to the review:

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/reviews.html

It would be very interesting to see similar figures for the prismasonic across the entire screen width. That said, I would have thought that a far more important consideration would be to have minimal differences in expansion across the screen rather than a paper spec number of 1.33x. In that respect it looks like the 5E1 is better than the ISCO.

Personally the Prismasonic 1.35x expansion doesn't bother me in the slightest but then I built a native 2.40:1 screen ratio


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My 8 year old daughter: "are contractors the people that mess up your house for money?"
Moggie is offline  
post #461 of 608 Old 06-20-2011, 02:47 PM
Member
 
Fredrik Rasmussen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok, so with an 8 feet wide 2.35:1 screen and this lens, how much would I loose on each side when having 2.40:1 material zoomed with no grey bars?

Sorry if being thick headed..

Edit:
PJ: Sim2 HT380 with T2 lens (2.0-3.0 Long throw optics), not as recessed as the T1 standard shortthrow optics.
Proposed Screen: Stewart Cinecurve 2.35 (106.25" w, 45.25" h), CC116SST13G3WX
Proposed A-lens: Prismasonic 6000 1.35x
TR: ~2

 

SNDQ119SST13WezX.pdf 27.6318359375k . file
Fredrik Rasmussen is offline  
post #462 of 608 Old 06-20-2011, 03:40 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik Rasmussen View Post
Ok, so with an 8 feet wide 2.35:1 screen and this lens, how much would I loose on each side when having 2.40:1 material zoomed with no grey bars?

Sorry if being thick headed..
Note that an 8' (96") wide 2.35 is 40.85" tall. The native 16:9 perfect fit image would be 40.85" x 72.62".

The scaler will employ a 1.33 vertical stretch which will make the image fill the projectors panel height. You will have the PJ zoomed to overscan a little to compensate for pincushion which is a bowing in of the top and bottom. How much pincushion depends on your TR. Next the lens is moved into place which optically stretches left-right. You have overscanned a little (made the image larger) by say 0.5 inches top and bottom, 1" total. So now your original image is 1.78" wider than the 16:9 size of 72.62, making it 74.4. With Prisimasonics non standard stretch ratio of 1.35, the resulting stretched image would be 100.44". Subtract your screen size of 96 and you end up with 4.44" wider than your screen. Or 2.22" of lost material on each side.

Check my numbers as I was hurrying, but I believe I have it right..


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #463 of 608 Old 06-20-2011, 10:24 PM
Senior Member
 
prismasonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It is not that easy to calculate the picture dimensions. The anamorphic expand ratio is also dependent on the throw distance and the throw ratio. The expand ratio increases as throw distance increases and the throw ratio decreases. If you monitor the anamorphic lens exit the expand ratio is not much above the 1x. At some throw distance, again depending on the throw ratio the expand ratio saturates close to nominal value of the lens. Curved screen again decreases the expand ratio around 1% depending on the curvature, throw ratio and throw distance, while it also neutralizes the non-linear expand.

So in Fredrik's case since he has a pretty small picture, and probable also pretty small throw distance the nominal 1.35x lens may match his 2.35:1 screen pretty well.

As a conclusion the absolutely perfect match with the screen is more or less tossing a coin, and IMO it is NOT the thing to worry about too much. The screen has black borders for allowing the over scan to the picture. You may have noticed at movie theaters the picture being over scanned to the velvet borders by tens of inches.

Anssi Leppanen

PRISMASONIC

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
prismasonic is offline  
post #464 of 608 Old 06-21-2011, 01:31 AM
Member
 
Fredrik Rasmussen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks Anssi and Scott, I put the actual proposed configration in my post above as we are getting into specifics.
Fredrik Rasmussen is offline  
post #465 of 608 Old 06-21-2011, 01:48 AM
Senior Member
 
prismasonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik Rasmussen View Post

Thanks Anssi and Scott, I put the actual proposed configration in my post above as we are getting into specifics.

I quickly simulated that the expand ratio for you setup will be 1.335 x with our lens.

(According to your specs, your throw distance is around 4.1 meters, and since I don't know the curvature radius of your screen I used 13 meters for that)

Anssi Leppanen

PRISMASONIC

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
prismasonic is offline  
post #466 of 608 Old 06-21-2011, 03:06 AM
Member
 
Fredrik Rasmussen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks,
would this also mean that I won't have to refocus the PJ if moving the A-lens out of the beam for 16:9 native material viewing? Apart from a small loss of top/bottom image?
Fredrik Rasmussen is offline  
post #467 of 608 Old 06-21-2011, 03:15 AM
Senior Member
 
prismasonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik Rasmussen View Post

Thanks,
would this also mean that I won't have to refocus the PJ if moving the A-lens out of the beam for 16:9 native material viewing? Apart from a small loss of top/bottom image?

No you won't have to refocus or re-zoom. Just adjust the picture when setting up so that it is slightly atop of both horizontal and vertical velvet frames.

Anssi Leppanen

PRISMASONIC

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
prismasonic is offline  
post #468 of 608 Old 06-27-2011, 09:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
samalmoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?
samalmoe is offline  
post #469 of 608 Old 06-28-2011, 05:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?

previous page has comments from users

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #470 of 608 Old 06-28-2011, 05:48 AM
Senior Member
 
RedTopDown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jarrettsville, MD
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?

I wish I was able to discuss its performance, but alas, I'm just getting back to working on my HT. I got on the waiting list in the early stages anticipating I'd be done by now. But a broken foot halted my progress for months.

I ordered and received the HD-6000RX with the motorized lift and focus. Mine will be mounted up in a hush box, so I went ahead and splurged for the motorized focus.

What I can tell you is this:

1) AVS was excellent in informing me of the shipment and didn't charge me until it was going out the door.

2) The unit was very well packed.

3) Assembly is pretty straightforward. You do need to take off the bottom of the lens unit (four screws on bottom and two on front) in order to peel off the protective plastic applied on all sides of the lenses. Assembly of the lift mechanism is quick and parts included allow you to vary the height of travel depending on your projector and/or mount.

4) The remote and power supply operate both the lift and the motorized focus. That being said, you only have it plugged in to one at a time. So you only have the power to the motorized focus during setup. The remote then controls the focus with the lift disabled, but in the light path. Once you get the focus right, you then switch the power to the lift. The remote then controls the lift.

5) Everything on mine was working as expected.

6) With no projector or screen, my testing was completed. Back in the box it went to be utilized in the near future (hopefully!).

I’m on the list for the upcoming CB-500 mount. I guess I have time to wait for it.

Sorry I couldn’t be of any help with the performance of the lens itself! Interested to hear about that too!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RedTopDown is offline  
post #471 of 608 Old 06-28-2011, 01:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
samalmoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I was more interested in hearing about performance...sharpness, light loss etc..anyone?
samalmoe is offline  
post #472 of 608 Old 06-28-2011, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Moggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 1,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
My installation is slow because I'm building a hush box and mount at the same time. The fact that the HD6000 is not readily ceiling mountable has meant that I needed to create a custom mount. I will be able to get everything fitted and fired up this (long) weekend. I'll post about my install and my performance findings after that.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My 8 year old daughter: "are contractors the people that mess up your house for money?"
Moggie is offline  
post #473 of 608 Old 06-29-2011, 06:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

I was more interested in hearing about performance...sharpness, light loss etc..anyone?

I made some initial comments on performance on the previous page.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #474 of 608 Old 06-29-2011, 11:42 AM
Member
 
bigjas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For what it's worth- here are my thoughts as my lens arrived today!
I should say my jvc 350 is my first pj. I have 55 hours on it, haven't calibrated it, have no equipment to measure anything other than by "eye". If you've stopped reading at this point I totally understand lol.
Well packaged as has been said ( I just went for the manual focus, no lift option). The instructions regarding removing the bottom panel seemed complex at first but turned out to be a breeze.
There is a tilt function I wasn't expecting. I had no idea this would actually alter (bend) the horizontal grid lines as I was expecting it to perform like a lens shift function ( I did say this was my first pj). Anyway I tilted it by hand so that the main lines in the middle of the screen were level ( having first adjusted the height of the mount so that the image was coming out of the middle of the large lens. And that was that!
I was surprised by the amount of pincushioning that appears to be present (when looking at the grid only as it's simply not noticeable when watching content).
The manual focus was a little tricky as I couldn't decide what area of the screen to concentrate on as my jvc has a menu area in the centre when adjusting. I'll probably continue to play with this a little. The whole 2.40:1 compared with 2.35:1 doesn't appear to be any issue. I'll set it for 2.37:1 and tweak the zoom if necessary.
Overall this is so much easier with CIH now achieved and the image is noticeably brighter now that I'm not projecting the black bars within the picture.
Overall I'm a very happy bunny and prismasonic have been a pleasure to deal with ( I went direct to them as I live in the UK and shipping to me from Finland via the USA seemed daft). The lens looks great in the flesh too which is a bonus. All I need to do now is find a sled ( I've shelf mounted). Any suggestions?
bigjas is offline  
post #475 of 608 Old 06-29-2011, 02:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjas View Post

All I need to do now is find a sled ( I've shelf mounted). Any suggestions?

A CineSlide would work nicely as this lens was also designed to be used on one.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #476 of 608 Old 06-29-2011, 09:58 PM
Member
 
sarkleshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is the cineslide under a grand?
sarkleshark is offline  
post #477 of 608 Old 06-30-2011, 04:56 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
No, but you can get a discount through AVS. PM me for details.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #478 of 608 Old 06-30-2011, 05:14 AM
Senior Member
 
RedTopDown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jarrettsville, MD
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Any update on the ETA of the CB-500 mount?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RedTopDown is offline  
post #479 of 608 Old 06-30-2011, 07:01 AM
Member
 
bigjas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There's no way I'm paying anything like a grand. Since I was going to manually slide and all I really wanted was a buffer which sorts out the back and side stop points, I have made my own with a strip of PVC I found lying around the house. Took me 20 mins and works a treat. Anyone else finding that there is no real sweet spot to nail the focussing?
bigjas is offline  
post #480 of 608 Old 06-30-2011, 07:43 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
There should be clear point of focus.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off