Criterion Goes Blu!!! - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:05 PM
Member
 
IanRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

On an absolute scale, PQ is just over 480p in resolution and Tier 3 in contrast and color.

Statements like these don't do any good either. The disc is a 1080p encode. Saying it only looks like "just over 480p" is very misleading.
IanRW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanRW View Post

Statements like these don't do any good either. The disc is a 1080p encode. Saying it only looks like "just over 480p" is very misleading.

This statement is accurate. I've seen plenty of 480p, 720p, and 1080p sources with my setup and overall net resolution (not counting grain) of this 1080p encode is somewhere between 480p and 720p (closer to 480p). Just because something is encoded in 1080p does not mean that it has 1080p resolution. Again, I am not criticizing Criterion for not doing a good job. I think it probably has more to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #543 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Senior Member
 
selimsivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

This statement is accurate. I've seen plenty of 480p, 720p, and 1080p sources with my setup and overall net resolution (not counting grain) of this 1080p encode is somewhere between 480p and 720p (closer to 480p). Just because something is encoded in 1080p does not mean that it has 1080p resolution. Again, I am not criticizing Criterion for not doing a good job. I think it probably has more to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source.

I respect you opinion, but, have you actually viewed this title?
selimsivad is offline  
post #544 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:49 PM
Member
 
IanRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

(not counting grain)

Many people would count grain to make statements about picture detail, myself included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by selimsivad View Post

I respect you opinion, but, have you actually viewed this title?

In his defense, he implies that he has seen the title. Most people who criticize based on screenshots at least admit that upfront.
IanRW is offline  
post #545 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:53 PM
Senior Member
 
selimsivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanRW View Post

Many people would count grain to make statements about picture detail, myself included.



In his defense, he implies that he has seen the title. Most people who criticize based on screenshots at least admit that upfront.

Thanks. Not sure how I missed that.
selimsivad is offline  
post #546 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
selimsivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

This statement is accurate. I've seen plenty of 480p, 720p, and 1080p sources with my setup and overall net resolution (not counting grain) of this 1080p encode is somewhere between 480p and 720p (closer to 480p). Just because something is encoded in 1080p does not mean that it has 1080p resolution. Again, I am not criticizing Criterion for not doing a good job. I think it probably has more to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source.

I agree. It's not supposed to look like Dead Man's Chest. It made me feel like I was in an indie theater versus a AMC. That's what I loved about it.
selimsivad is offline  
post #547 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by selimsivad View Post

I respect you opinion, but, have you actually viewed this title?

Yes I did. I saw it last night on my 150" screen with Panasonic AE2000 1080P projector and Panasonic BD55 player.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #548 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanRW View Post

Many people would count grain to make statements about picture detail, myself included.

I used to think that too. But after seeing several titles where being on Blu-ray or HD DVD added only grain and no real underlying detail, I am questioning whether that's something I should continue to believe.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #549 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 11:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Just got done watching Bottle Rocket. This looks great. Excellent detail with fine layer of grain. Picture definitely looked 1080p sharp with no EE or DNR.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #550 of 2502 Old 12-17-2008, 11:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

Just got done watching Bottle Rocket. This looks great. Excellent detail with fine layer of grain. Picture definitely looked 1080p sharp with no EE or DNR.

That's good to hear. I love Bottle Rocket!
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #551 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 02:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

I used to think that too. But after seeing several titles where being on Blu-ray or HD DVD added only grain and no real underlying detail, I am questioning whether that's something I should continue to believe.

Grain is picture detail. When the grain is highly resolved you see HD detail. It does not mean there is also real world 1080p detail coming with it. That depends on the image subject, the lens and filters used, the focusing, the exposure, the motion, the copying of the elements. As long as you see the detail in the film element used the transfer is correct
mhafner is offline  
post #552 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 03:00 PM
Senior Member
 
history2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
avsforum members should be very very careful about what they think they know on a technical level. You end up sound very ignorant regardless of your confidence in your consumer equipment.

Its one thing to say you aren't impressed with the PQ and hopefully you can articulate this well enough to other members here who may agree. But to say erroneous things like that a blu ray disc "is barely 480p" and that "the film may not have the resolution" its just baffling.
history2b is offline  
post #553 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:15 PM
Member
 
ccfixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DVDBeaver's comparison of "The Last Emperor" on blu-ray is up now!

CC


Blu-Rays Owned:
274 Films
7 TV Programs
5 Music
ccfixx is offline  
post #554 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Sutliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm getting THE THIRD MAN delivered from Amazon tomorrow. It's in my top three movies of all time, I can't wait to see it in high definition.
Larry Sutliff is offline  
post #555 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Neo_Reloaded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfixx View Post

DVDBeaver's comparison of "The Last Emperor" on blu-ray is up now!

CC

Wonderful looking shots, though I'm still sore about the reframing. I hope Paramount will keep the original framing of Apocalypse Now, but I doubt it.
Neo_Reloaded is offline  
post #556 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:37 PM
Member
 
ccfixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Sutliff View Post

I'm getting THE THIRD MAN delivered from Amazon tomorrow. It's in my top three movies of all time, I can't wait to see it in high definition.

You're gonna love it!

CC


Blu-Rays Owned:
274 Films
7 TV Programs
5 Music
ccfixx is offline  
post #557 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:38 PM
Member
 
ccfixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

Wonderful looking shots,

I agree completely, Neo... especially, the shots toward the bottom of the comparison review. I like those shots much better than the actual ones being compared.

CC


Blu-Rays Owned:
274 Films
7 TV Programs
5 Music
ccfixx is offline  
post #558 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:38 PM
Member
 
Drandonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I watched Third Man for the first time.

Movie was decent. Very overrated. Orson Welles rocked the house, though.

The one thing I hated, hated about the movie was the soundtrack. It killed any sort of tension, intrigue, or mystery in the movie. It's reminded of the Conan skit where he played circus music while Harrison Ford did his intense face.

I had to actually pause the movie twice. That's how distracting the music was. Ugh.
Drandonuts is offline  
post #559 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 05:45 PM
Member
 
ccfixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drandonuts View Post

The one thing I hated, hated about the movie was the soundtrack. It killed any sort of tension, intrigue, or mystery in the movie. It's reminded of the Conan skit where he played circus music while Harrison Ford did his intense face.

I had to actually pause the movie twice. That's how distracting the music was. Ugh.

Really? Oh, that is so disappointing for me to hear... especially me being a lover of music. That soundtrack is absolutely brilliant, in my opinion... so quirky. It's the perfect companion piece to the storytelling. That's too bad you couldn't enjoy it more, though.

CC


Blu-Rays Owned:
274 Films
7 TV Programs
5 Music
ccfixx is offline  
post #560 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 07:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

avsforum members should be very very careful about what they think they know on a technical level. You end up sound very ignorant regardless of your confidence in your consumer equipment.

Its one thing to say you aren't impressed with the PQ and hopefully you can articulate this well enough to other members here who may agree. But to say erroneous things like that a blu ray disc "is barely 480p" and that "the film may not have the resolution" its just baffling.

I know what I said and I standby my statement. I did not say Blu-ray disc is barely 480p. What I said is
Quote:


overall net resolution (not counting grain) of this 1080p encode is somewhere between 480p and 720p (closer to 480p). Just because something is encoded in 1080p does not mean that it has 1080p resolution. Again, I am not criticizing Criterion for not doing a good job. I think it probably has more to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source.

I also did not say "the film my not have the resolution". I said that the poor net resolution probably has to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source. Original film source takes into account the net effect of image subject, the lens and filters used, the focusing, the exposure, the motion, the copying of the elements as so eloquently put by mhafner.

The overall net resolution (facial features, details of background, etc) of this encode (TMWFTE) was worse than the best 720p native sources as viewed on my setup, but better than the best 480p native sources I've seen. What else am I supposed to say??? This was an okay release for low budget film from 1970s, but not the spectacular, most film like presentation on Blu-ray IMO.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #561 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Grain is picture detail. When the grain is highly resolved you see HD detail. It does not mean there is also real world 1080p detail coming with it. That depends on the image subject, the lens and filters used, the focusing, the exposure, the motion, the copying of the elements. As long as you see the detail in the film element used the transfer is correct

I agree 100% that when I see grain, that I'm more or less getting the best that I can from the existing film element. But what I'm having trouble with recently is there are few releases where the only thing you gain from high bitrate, high resolution encode is grain and nothing else. If that was the case, is it worthwhile to upgrade to Blu-ray to just get the underlying film grain?

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #562 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xradman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfixx View Post

DVDBeaver's comparison of "The Last Emperor" on blu-ray is up now!

CC

Wow, those look very good. I do think it was a bad idea to reframe the movie by cropping the sides. Too bad they couldn't give us both the original and reframed version. Heck, I would have payed extra for 4 disc ultimate version with extended and theatrical cut + reframed cut.

Addicted to shiny round discs with HD content

My Home Theater
My Movie Collection
BDP-83 EAP (second group)
xradman is offline  
post #563 of 2502 Old 12-18-2008, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
 
selimsivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by selimsivad View Post

TMWFTO looked spectacular! The contrast was PERFECTLY natural looking! There was a few smudges at the bottom of the screen every now and then, but not really distracting. They actually made the movie feel more "film-like."

In fact, it's the most film-like Blu to date. It felt "projected," even though I watched on my 46" Sammy. Close facial scenes were detailed and natural looking! All of the psychedelic scenes looked better than ever!

Looking forward to more Criterion releases! Bottle Rocket starts in an hour!

As much as I loved this movie, I'd like to apologize for ranking this title too high! A special apology to xradman. I just watched it again. I stand by my original descriptions, but it's indeed a little soft. Let's just say that I wasn't in the right "mind state!"

I put it at Tier 3 in the PQ thread.
selimsivad is offline  
post #564 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 12:55 AM
Senior Member
 
history2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

I know what I said and I standby my statement. I did not say Blu-ray disc is barely 480p. What I said is


I also did not say "the film my not have the resolution". I said that the poor net resolution probably has to do with the lack of resolution in the original film source. Original film source takes into account the net effect of image subject, the lens and filters used, the focusing, the exposure, the motion, the copying of the elements as so eloquently put by mhafner.

The overall net resolution (facial features, details of background, etc) of this encode (TMWFTE) was worse than the best 720p native sources as viewed on my setup, but better than the best 480p native sources I've seen. What else am I supposed to say??? This was an okay release for low budget film from 1970s, but not the spectacular, most film like presentation on Blu-ray IMO.

There is no "lack of resolution in the original film source." That is just erroneous. All variables that you described that cinematographers can control in photography does not reduce "a net resolution." It is not comparable in the terms you attempting to articulate. The NTSC video standard is a highly highly compressed video regardless of its source and to say an older film even from the 70s, 40s or 30s has a "net resolution" of this video standard is just wrong. Home video cameras from the 80s and 90s (pre HD) have a resolution of "480." Literally.

The problem is people don't understand film and how modern digital technology has changed what film looks like today versus what it looked like 20 years ago and beyond.
history2b is offline  
post #565 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 01:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

Wow, those look very good. I do think it was a bad idea to reframe the movie by cropping the sides. Too bad they couldn't give us both the original and reframed version. Heck, I would have payed extra for 4 disc ultimate version with extended and theatrical cut + reframed cut.

There's a explanation here when the DVD was released: http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/713

It doesn't mention Storaro claiming that DVD doesn't have enough resolution to represent the original aspect ratio, I wonder if they consulted him again for the Blu-ray, which does of course.

I'm with you though, I would have appreciated another disc with as much of the original frame as possible.
eric.exe is offline  
post #566 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 01:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

Wonderful looking shots, though I'm still sore about the reframing. I hope Paramount will keep the original framing of Apocalypse Now, but I doubt it.

NO lossless surround track from Criterion for this release.
NO original AR from Criterion for this release.
Way cool, Criterion.

The Last Emperor and Apocalypse Now...at 2:1...two films that cry out for 2:35 or >.
I just don't believe Coppola or Bertolucci can't/won't overrule this from the diseased mind of VS.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #567 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

I agree 100% that when I see grain, that I'm more or less getting the best that I can from the existing film element. But what I'm having trouble with recently is there are few releases where the only thing you gain from high bitrate, high resolution encode is grain and nothing else. If that was the case, is it worthwhile to upgrade to Blu-ray to just get the underlying film grain?

If you compare the DVD with properly done HD from film sources there is always a clear improvement even if the film source is quite soft and has no 1080p real world detail at all. The improvement is that you now can get a much more analogue and smooth looking picture that simulates the actual look of film much more closely and is (almost) free of digital artifacts that practically every DVD has and which are pretty in your face if you use revealing viewing conditions where you see 1080p detail. Edges are now clean and smooth, the ringing and compression problems around them are gone. Textures look right. Wide shots don't fall apart. There are no jaggies that should not be there... The images are easy on the eye and the veil of digital artifacting has been removed. IF the HD is done to preserve the film look. And it's not done like that all the time. It's easy to make HD look as nasty as DVD in this regard, just higher resolution nasty, but nasty still (cough, cough, TDK... etc.).
mhafner is offline  
post #568 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 06:24 AM
Member
 
ccfixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

NO lossless surround track from Criterion for this release.
Way cool, Criterion.

What are you talking about... no lossless audio? "The Last Emperor" blu-ray has DTS-HD Master audio, which is lossless, no?

CC


Blu-Rays Owned:
274 Films
7 TV Programs
5 Music
ccfixx is offline  
post #569 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dougotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drandonuts View Post

Well, I watched Third Man for the first time.

Movie was decent. Very overrated. Orson Welles rocked the house, though.

The one thing I hated, hated about the movie was the soundtrack. It killed any sort of tension, intrigue, or mystery in the movie. It's reminded of the Conan skit where he played circus music while Harrison Ford did his intense face.

I had to actually pause the movie twice. That's how distracting the music was. Ugh.

Well, I have to admit that, when I first saw this movie about 25 years ago, my opinion of the film and ST were similar to yours. Try it another time or two. The quirkiness that hits you in the face gives way to the brilliance of the film and...yes...the ST.

Doug
dougotte is offline  
post #570 of 2502 Old 12-19-2008, 11:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stinky-Dinkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfixx View Post

What are you talking about... no lossless audio? "The Last Emperor" blu-ray has DTS-HD Master audio, which is lossless, no?

CC

I think the package incorrectly lists no lossless audio track (could be wrong though.) Maybe that's what confused him.
Stinky-Dinkins is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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