Zoom with 4K ? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 40 Old 11-14-2011, 05:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I'm considering a large 4K projector for my theater. Till now pixel visbility has been one of the primary reasons to use an anamorphic lens over zooming at least in my case. Additionally, better use of light from the projector is a factor but these seem to be moot with a projector that ouputs 3500 lumens and has 4K resolution.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 40 Old 11-14-2011, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
While more pixels can help in this regard, its also depends on the tech that the projector uses to create its pixels. The pixelgrid visibility varied very much between different 1080P projectors. So its not just a resolution issue.

On the other hand, if you already own a anamorphic lens, why not use it on a 4K projector?

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #3 of 40 Old 11-14-2011, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm using mine when I move to 4K. No masking needed for 2.35, more light output, 33 percent more pixel density, lightening quick aspect changes, etc. I sit 2-2.4x PH and still clearly see screen door on bright picture elements even at +3x. At 4x the picture is perfect so a 4k/Isco3 combo should be good at 2x. Without the lens I'm looking at 2.66xPH for same pic quality.
coolrda is offline  
post #4 of 40 Old 11-14-2011, 11:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I sit 2-2.4x PH and still clearly see screen door on bright picture elements even at +3x. At 4x the picture is perfect so a 4k/Isco3 combo should be good at 2x. Without the lens I'm looking at 2.66xPH for same pic quality.

The screendoor depends alot on the projector. And since we talking 4K. You have better pixeldensity then a 1080P with lens.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #5 of 40 Old 11-16-2011, 10:25 PM
Senior Member
 
sipester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No experience with a 4K projector, but just doing some math. With a 4K projector, I believe you could upscale 1980 * 817 content to 4,096 * 1,743 to be displayed on the screen (assuming you had the right scaler).

With a 1920 * 1080 projector, you get roughly 32% more pixels by scaling/using anamorphic lens than by just zooming (i.e. 2 million pixels vs. 1.5 million). That is a benefit that is not easily ignored.

However, with a 4K projector, I think the issuing of scaling just to 2.35 and zooming vs. scaling to 16:9 and using the lens is much less of a benefit for the lens option. Here's what I mean. With scaling to 4,096 * 1,743, that is 7.1 million pixels, which is roughly 455% more than the original content.

Sure, you can keep scaling to fill up the whole panel, which is 8.9 million pixels (4,096 * 2,180) or 569% more than the content.

I know scaling has benefits, but is there really that much more to be gained by having 569% more than the content vs 455% more than the original content. Even if there is some small benefit, I can't imagine it would be worth the other issues that might come into play with having a lens in there.

So assuming the light output is okay, it sure seems that with all the extra resolution available with a 4K projector, is it really necessary to fill out those last pixels?
sipester is offline  
post #6 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
For Art,

Whilst I would normally say keep the lens, is this 4K projector a true 4096? Because if it is, you may not be able to use your ISCO III as it is a 1.33x lens and you actually need a 1.25x. ISCO made the 1.25x for original 2K (2048) projectors.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 08:12 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Mark,
It's 4096x2400.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #8 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 09:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 117
I was just going to say, if you go through the math, based on visual accuity, there's a case to me made for added pixel density even at 4K without zooming.

At the bottom of this post I posted some numbers for resolution vs required screen heights to not benefit from more resolution, we were talking about "nearly 4K" 3840x2160 projectors. With those, even unzoomed, at 2160 vertical lines if you're within 2.5 picture heights, you can resolve more resolution.

If you zoom your 4096 projector, a scope image would be only about 1720 pixels, a resolution at which even at a bit over 3 picture heights you could resolve more resolution.

Of course we're getting farther into the realm of diminishing returns with 4K displays, but it would be interesting to hear your impressions.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #9 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 11:10 AM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'm considering a large 4K projector for my theater. Till now pixel visbility has been one of the primary reasons to use an anamorphic lens over zooming at least in my case. Additionally, better use of light from the projector is a factor but these seem to be moot with a projector that ouputs 3500 lumens and has 4K resolution.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Art

With that resolution and brightness I doubt if PQ while zooming will be an issue. The question may be whether you can implement the zoom method in a smooth and seamless way. If the projector has lens memory, how long will it take to change ARs and will it be extremely accurate? Will you have to make small manual adjustments to the lens shift like Sony 95 users are reporting? Does the projector have electronic masking for the black bar areas in 2.35 mode? IMO it looks very bad when you're zoomed for 2.35 and a menu or FBI warning comes up and bleeds off the screen. I always keep my VP masking activated in 2.35 mode to keep the image looking clean. And it works great for variable AR films like TDK.

You might also consider the shrink method where 16:9 is downscaled to fit the height of a scope screen. I believe even CAVX and coolrda have stated that if they couldn't use an anamorphic lens they would do the shrink method. The advantages over zooming being constant brightness, calibration, pixel density and instant AR changes. Of course these could also be achieved with an anamorphic lens by leaving it in place and scaling for 16:9.
5mark is offline  
post #10 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 12:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Art,

Would there be ergonomic benefits to keeping or dropping the A-lens?
I'm betting that the type of projector you'd be looking at would have lens memory pre-set features for automated zooming, but I don't know if that makes it as easy to implement as an A-lens, or visa versa.
R Harkness is offline  
post #11 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Posts: 2,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Seems to me that a 4K projector plus lens and scaler would be great. Using the shrink method for anything less than 2.40:1, you'd still be able to display more pixels that the source has. Am I missing something? (still a zoomer, but I can dream...)

High Desert Theater - work in progress
Building Bass - Subs

Surrounds - Easy as Pi

Storage - unRAID unDELL

petew is offline  
post #12 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 04:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Mark,
It's 4096x2400.

Art

Why do they make pro gear with obscure ARs like this? 4096 / 2400 = 1.7:1.
So it seems you might need a 1.39x. I know Schneider used to make a 1.42x, but not sure if they still do. Otherwise, your scaling and still not using the full panel. Kind of defeats the purpose here IMO. Granted each pixel is now 1/4 the size of your current pixels, you might just be forced to convert to the dark zoom side

If that is your option, I'd suggest the shrink method over zooming anyway. You have more than enough pixels to throw a few away.

Looks like one ISCO III + Cineslide + 14 foot wide curved screen will be listed on the 4 sale section soon

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 06:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 117
A 1.33x lens would work, you just wouldn't be able to use quite all the vertical resolution, only about 2300 lines of it.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #14 of 40 Old 11-17-2011, 10:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Otherwise, your scaling and still not using the full panel. Kind of defeats the purpose here IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

A 1.33x lens would work, you just wouldn't be able to use quite all the vertical resolution, only about 2300 lines of it.

What I said. If Art was to speak to Peter (Cineramax), I'm sure Peter would suggest no A-Lens. It will be interesting to see where Art goes with this given the money he has spent so far on his system.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 40 Old 11-19-2011, 06:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Thanks all ! I need this since there is simply no way I'm going to think of everything before the purchase.

I'm not seeing much on paper at least that would make this a bad move.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #16 of 40 Old 11-19-2011, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
If it turn out to be a bad move, you can always use a lens.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #17 of 40 Old 11-19-2011, 01:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Art,

Would there be ergonomic benefits to keeping or dropping the A-lens?
I'm betting that the type of projector you'd be looking at would have lens memory pre-set features for automated zooming, but I don't know if that makes it as easy to implement as an A-lens, or visa versa.

Better than that is using a fixed lens that matches your screen width and do electronic resizing, from 2.39 to 1.78 works great . THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETER WITH 4k, (besides using cinema dlp if you can) is the lens.

What is your throw distance Art?

You will never ever want to go back to 2k, with the right lens.

The stairstepping is gone... and still you get great mtf and ansi. Of course if you want maximum contrast get one that holds a 7kw lamp, step it down to the max and put a smaller lamp in it (not to melt the lightpipe).

If your td isgreater than 1.85 then you are ok with zooming some of those are certified for 4k with zoom, the shorter throws suck in resolution.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #18 of 40 Old 11-19-2011, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Better than that is using a fixed lens that matches your screen width and do electronic resizing, from 2.39 to 1.78 works great . THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETER WITH 4k, (besides using cinema dlp if you can) is the lens.

By electronic resizing I assume that means downscaling 1.78 until it fits the height of the scope screen? Do any 4K projectors have this feature built in or would a VP be necessary?
5mark is offline  
post #19 of 40 Old 11-19-2011, 02:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 42
It is done exceedingly well in the TI Engine All series 2's should do.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #20 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 03:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETER WITH 4k, (besides using cinema dlp if you can) is the lens.

Peter,

I assume by this you are referring to the projector's primary lens, not the ISCO III which would be considered a secondary lens in the light path.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #21 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 05:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I don't think the isco would be of any help in resolving the 4k pixels.

For cinema dlp the best 4 k , cost no object situation is a specially fitted lens ($60,000 up), second best is one of the fixed lenses available. .65,.78,.92,1,1.1,1.2,1.3.(11-000-22,000)most made by Isco as well.

Then there is a GAP where there is no 4k lensing (you have to live with the 2k), and then in the 1.8-2.6 zoom range and up they start getting better but not as good as second best a good third best.

The isco 3 would have to hurt the resolvability somehow, how much? Don't know.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #22 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 05:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I'm looking at one of the JVC Pro units instead of the Barco. The tale, at this point at least, is the black floor of the Barco unit.

I'm going to look at it in a few weeks to see if it is right for me. Since 4K content isn't available yet I need to look at how well it does the processing of BD.

I sit really close and would love more light so my 14' wide scope image is always bright giving it more pop than I have now. With a native sequential contrast of five times the Barco I hope this is a good choice.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #23 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 07:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Meridian doesn't think so. Isco III and Cinesilde is built in to their Phelps tuned rebadged 4k. They are pretty picky, too. But what do they know...
GetGray is offline  
post #24 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
This may seem like a stupid suggestion, but if brightness is one of the reasons you would buy the 4K projector. Another solution would be a to use twin projectors.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #25 of 40 Old 11-20-2011, 05:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I don't think the isco would be of any help in resolving the 4k pixels.

For cinema dlp the best 4 k , cost no object situation is a specially fitted lens ($60,000 up), second best is one of the fixed lenses available. .65,.78,.92,1,1.1,1.2,1.3.(11-000-22,000)most made by Isco as well.

Maybe I didn't word my question right. ISCO might very well make the lenses, but they are spherical, not cylindrical like an ISCO III. Is that correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'm looking at one of the JVC Pro units instead of the Barco. The tale, at this point at least, is the black floor of the Barco unit.

I'm going to look at it in a few weeks to see if it is right for me. Since 4K content isn't available yet I need to look at how well it does the processing of BD.

I sit really close and would love more light so my 14' wide scope image is always bright giving it more pop than I have now. With a native sequential contrast of five times the Barco I hope this is a good choice.

Art

Art,

Are you referring to their 4K beast? If so, I've had a little experience with this machine and in all honestly, I don't think up-scaled BD looked as good on that machine as on one their HD projectors (1920 x 1080) for the same size image. I believe it was designed to run 4 x HD program, not 1 massive image at 4x the size. Sure it capable of doing that, but I think it would need an external VP to look its best.

Might be not be important to you, but the xenon lamp for that thing is good for 1000 hours and cost $7K. The benefit is its true colour fidelity where UHP lamps need correction for white to be white.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #26 of 40 Old 11-21-2011, 07:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Mark,
This is the unit I'm considering:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/f...l_id=MDL101793

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #27 of 40 Old 11-21-2011, 07:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Here it is with a lens

Prototype:


Shipping (although the dummy who took the photo didn't know the lens was turned wrong):
GetGray is offline  
post #28 of 40 Old 11-21-2011, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Mark,
This is the unit I'm considering:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/f...l_id=MDL101793

Art

The very one. JVC allowed me to operate this for both CEDIA and SMPTE in 09 and CEDIA for 2010. I missed out this year because I got married. The chips are DiLA 4096 x 2500 (according to JVC) which makes it about 16:10. I remember the jokes about the running costs and when I asked how much for the replacement xenon lamp, was told it was $7K for 1000 hours.

The thing easliy weights 80 pounds, so its a stable table mount for this big boy. And it is not the quietest unit around so you'll be thankful you have a "booth" to house it in your HT. It also pumps out some heat too but I am sure you have that covered too.

When fed from a PC source, the image was awesome. I didn't think its scaling of a BD was that great though as I did see the jaggies quite a bit with all the demo screenings we did using Blu-ray. We didn't have any true 4K material but did have some 3K (shot on RED) that was down converted to 2K and then up-converted to 4K which we fed by the PC. The only way we could show a true 1:1 pixel mapping was to open 4 HD windows. The idea was neat, but because each window was half the width of the screen, I felt it was underwhelming for the $$$$$$ (yes 6 figures at the time) outlay.

Scott,

So have Meridian simply re-badged the JVC?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #29 of 40 Old 11-21-2011, 04:32 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 46
William Phelps was using his proprietary panel calibration on their units. I believe he persoanlly tweaked every one of them. Theirs included a automated lens and a Marvel (I think) 4k scaler. Not sure what other tweaks.

This 4k is the one Coldmachine used to dog pretty hard compared to DLP options. Don't remember the explicit beef he had though. ANSI contrast maybe.
GetGray is offline  
post #30 of 40 Old 11-21-2011, 04:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 44
These are all questions I have and will need to be ironed out. Uniformity is the big one. No LCOS will compete with DLP on ANSI but it has five time the native sequential contrast of the Barco units with plenty of light as well as the ability to align the panels in 1/10 pixel steps.

The big Barco was out for me as soon as the black floor reared it's head despit the other traits.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn 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