Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 2438 Old 09-22-2011, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

That particular shot does look good at either 1.78 or 1.66. But that's the problem, isn't it? We're cherry-picking shots to find those that look good cropped. Not every shot would work that way.

Exactly. This is a lot like when people pick out a still-frame capture and talk about how bad it looks as a transfer... when it might just be that one frame.

Picking a single frame and saying it looks better in widescreen is of little real value. Also, someone else pointed out that the "missing info" that we don't see in 4:3 is usually seen a frame or three later as the still-frame is part of a panning shot that shows it all anyway... so that goes out the window too.

All this single-frame = proof stuff has gotten out of hand in various places on the internet if you ask me. We aren't evaluating still photography, so we really shouldn't be looking at single frames out of context.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 2438 Old 09-22-2011, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Picking a single frame and saying it looks better in widescreen is of little real value.

You're talking about the fact that a single frame tells us nothing about the overall look of the entire episode or series, but there's another even more important piece of context missing, as well.

When you're looking at a single frame of a single shot of an episode and aesthetically evaluating it with different framing options, you aren't considering the real reasons for the framing choices that were made. The original purpose of the sample frame we're discussing is not to present a pleasing portrait of Captain Picard; it's to best tell the story of that part of the episode's script. One can look at an image out of context and decide that it looks pleasing to the eye, but what is pleasing, out of context, in a still-frame isn't necessarily the best choice to express the emotional content of the scene.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #453 of 2438 Old 09-22-2011, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

One can look at an image out of context and decide that it looks pleasing to the eye, but what is pleasing, out of context, in a still-frame isn't necessarily the best choice to express the emotional content of the scene.

Yes... and I was meaning to express that as well. Evaluating single frames for picture quality is dicey enough... but evaluating single frames to try and determine mood and setting and framing and context of how the whole moving scene works? It really makes no sense.

It would be like taking one sentence out of a novel, and trying to extrapolate the entirety of the story from there... and determining that you can change the language throughout the story based on making changes to that one sentence. It is a dangerous proposition that I would hate to see become routine.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #454 of 2438 Old 09-22-2011, 05:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

That particular shot does look good at either 1.78 or 1.66. But that's the problem, isn't it? We're cherry-picking shots to find those that look good cropped. Not every shot would work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Exactly. This is a lot like when people pick out a still-frame capture and talk about how bad it looks as a transfer... when it might just be that one frame.

Picking a single frame and saying it looks better in widescreen is of little real value. Also, someone else pointed out that the "missing info" that we don't see in 4:3 is usually seen a frame or three later as the still-frame is part of a panning shot that shows it all anyway... so that goes out the window too.

All this single-frame = proof stuff has gotten out of hand in various places on the internet if you ask me. We aren't evaluating still photography, so we really shouldn't be looking at single frames out of context.

Okay...

I want to point out that *I* never said the show looked better in widescreen. Never said it. In fact, it might surprise both of you to know that, all things considered, I think the show is probably best kept in 4:3. I was reacting to Robert Meyer Burnett's Twitter comments that *he* preferred the show in 16:9. I personally wanted to see what a random shot might look like in 1.66 and 1.78. I guess my mistake was to share it with all of you. I thought the results were interesting enough to post.

Also, I didn't "cherry-pick" that frame because I thought it would show off the re-framing process in the best light possible. Though, I understand why you might think that. I chose it because I was going through TrekCore's "Encounter at Farpoint" gallery and saw two sequential captures that between them showed a wider view of the background. That's it. That's all. It's the first one I saw that did that and so I went with it, checked Panavision's aperture specs and opened up Photoshop.

Finally, watch the episode. The pan is minor and occurred only because the camera operator had to slightly re-frame the shot due to the blocking -- Patrick Stewart walks forward to his second mark and comes closer to the camera.

If CBS is dead set on converting this show to 16:9, I think at the very least the two remaining DPs should be consulted. Without a doubt. That means Marvin V. Rush and Jonathan West (not sure if Edward R. Brown is still alive). They would know better than anyone the feasibility of conversion of TNG to 16:9 (or any other possible aspect ratio). Rush was the DP on both "Menage a Troi" in 1990 and "These Are the Voyages" in 2005 and probably oversaw (in some capacity) the reformatting of the TNG footage for use on Enterprise.

I think maybe we all need to just take a deep breath and possibly hold our rage back until we see some footage. I definitely agree on that point.
Maxwell Everett is offline  
post #455 of 2438 Old 09-22-2011, 09:12 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Terminator840's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Frankfort, KY
Posts: 851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

We're not dealing with Paramount, we're dealing with CBS, who also handled TOS on Blu-ray quite well IMO.

People need to stop associating Star Trek on television with Paramount. Paramount has nothing whatsoever to do with Trek on TV. They only do feature films (which they can't help but screw up).

You are partly right. CBS owns Star Trek, but any theatrical release or any DVD or Bluray release including TV episodes, Paramount owns the distribution rights. With a project of this magnitude Paramount's hands will be in it.
Terminator840 is offline  
post #456 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dougotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Okay...

I want to point out that *I* never said the show looked better in widescreen...

Thanks for your clarification, Max. I never intended to criticize you for providing us with that example. In fact, I appreciate your efforts. I just was pointing out to everyone in this discussion that we can't evaluate an entire series based upon a single one-frame example (as HDMe2 posted more eloquently).

Thanks again,
Doug
dougotte is online now  
post #457 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 10:48 AM
 
TyrantII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 832
Obviously.

But one thing to keep in mind was Trek was often directed by a great number of very different people. Lots of guest directors were brought in to get different flavors.

Because of that, consistency and intent might be harder then we think. There simply won't be one voice.
TyrantII is offline  
post #458 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,428
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface1701 View Post

I wouldn't say they were intended to be shown that way. I'm currently re-watching Buffy and Angel, and I'm constantly annoyed by seeing crew or equipment at the sides of the frame. At times, it's actually ruining the scene (I'll try to post examples soon). The only episode intended to be shown in widescreen was the Buffy musical "Once More with Feeling", which was aired in widescreen from day one.

Edit: I looked through a couple of eps of Buffy and Angel and I was spoilt for choice! This is a good example though of the kind of thing I don't want to see in TNG Remastered:

Considering how much could go wrong, and how it is messing with the intent of everyone who worked on the show back then, I'm changing my opinion - I'm now against a 16:9 release.

I was stunned by how many errors were in the opened-up 16:9 versions of Buffy, not to mention how crappy the framing looks with the characters packed into the centre of the picture, but all everyone else cared about was that it was in widescreen. Pffft. Thank **** for the 4:3 US discs.

Such errors also crept into something which was supposedly framed for 16:9 all along - Babylon 5 - and I even caught a few 16:9 flubs in the first season of 24, believe it or not.

Still, I've always had an inkling that they may well have protected for 16:9 on TNG, or at the very least had a large safe area to play with. I just hope that their 16:9 tests have been more judicious than blindly opening up the sides of the frame.
Geoff D is online now  
post #459 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 03:33 PM
Member
 
dstewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At what point did 16:9 emerge as the HD ratio? I thought it was around the time TNG ended.

If that is the case why would they be protecting for it?
dstewart is offline  
post #460 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 05:52 PM
Newbie
 
l'auteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Clearly a 4:3 presentation is the most correct framing for this series. The best you may expect from a 16:9 version is that it may not be "that bad."

It does not seem logical to expect opening the frame will improve the image quality. It seems more likely that this will introduce problems, as others have pointed out (altered compositions, unintended visual information or dead-space at edges of the frame, picture information cropped from top and bottom of the frame).

I'm by no means well-informed on this, but correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, I also have reservations about any "re-imagining" being done to the VFX. So maybe I'm just old-fashioned, and in-the-minority.
l'auteur is offline  
post #461 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 07:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Dan Average's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstewart View Post

At what point did 16:9 emerge as the HD ratio? I thought it was around the time TNG ended.

If that is the case why would they be protecting for it?

An International Telecommunications Union working group recommended 16:9 in 1983. SMPTE followed suit two years later and a 16:9 HD spec was published in 1987. But Japan originally chose 5:3 for HD and that AR stuck around into the '90s. I would guess that episodes after the first couple of seasons might have been protected for 16:9, but this is a pure hunch.
Dan Average is offline  
post #462 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
TOS now airs in cropped 16:9 on a channel called Space HD here (same as how it airs in Japan I guess). The annoying thing is that this means the SD version of the channel is showing the series letterboxed.

I could see them doing the same thing for TNG (16:9 for some TV and 4:3 for disc and other TV). Apparently Seinfeld was done in both original 4:3 and reformatted 16:9 when Sony remastered it, with the 4:3 ending up on DVD but not BD yet...
msgohan is offline  
post #463 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 10:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Still, I've always had an inkling that they may well have protected for 16:9 on TNG, or at the very least had a large safe area to play with. I just hope that their 16:9 tests have been more judicious than blindly opening up the sides of the frame.

I was doing some digging and it appears the people at Star Trek didn't start flirting with protecting for 16:9 until about the 5th season of Deep Space Nine and the 3rd season of Voyager (1996-97).

From Cinematography.com:

Quote:


Interestingly, we tested the "cross-shape" idea back in 1996-97. I drew up over a dozen different possible relationships between 4x3 and 16x9 in AutoCad, all with equal amounts of "extra" 16x9 room on the sides, but more 4x3 slop below than above. I showed them to some DP's, and Bob Primes and I selected two of them for testing. Panavision made up some ground glasses, and Jonathan West shot some tests for us on the DS9 set. Those tests blew the idea out of the water. That's what convinced me that the only right solution was to give up on a fixed relationship between the two frames, and argue for the extra work and expense of an online repositioning session to get the best possible compromise for the secondary composition. I gave the test ground glasses to Marianne in the camera department, and she made earrings out of them.

Later we did tests of pan and scan vs. tilt and scan on Voyager, and chose the tilt and scan approach.

-- J.S.

Read more: http://www.cinematography.com/index....#ixzz1YqN7hJhO

Maxwell Everett is offline  
post #464 of 2438 Old 09-23-2011, 11:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
darkedgex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminator840 View Post

You are partly right. CBS owns Star Trek, but any theatrical release or any DVD or Bluray release including TV episodes, Paramount owns the distribution rights. With a project of this magnitude Paramount's hands will be in it.

No, I'm 100% right. Paramount will have absolutely NOTHING to do with how the television shows are handled, their role will only be distributor of the final product created by CBS. See here. Google is your friend if you want more proof.

Fight mediocrity: Insist on BD50 discs for all movies longer than 100 minutes, optimized video encodes that fully utilize the available space, lossless audio track, and new masters for catalog titles!
darkedgex is offline  
post #465 of 2438 Old 09-24-2011, 02:38 AM
Senior Member
 
FitzRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

That particular shot does look good at either 1.78 or 1.66. But that's the problem, isn't it? We're cherry-picking shots to find those that look good cropped. Not every shot would work that way.

Doug

That's not a cropped shot. The original negatives have more horizontal information than what appeared on TV. There's no reason to discard it nowadays as we're not broadcasting to 4:3 sets anymore. There's a reason 16:9 replaced 4:3. It corresponds better to human field of vision and makes everything more epic. I will take as wide a shot as I can get without cropping. Even the third shot he posted with expansion+cropping to eliminate bars isn't that bad. If not for the extra information on the negatives, the vertical cropping would be unbearable.

Dillon: My men were in that chopper when it got hit! Hopper's orders were to go in and remove grain and the detail just disappeared.
Dutch: It didn't disappear. It was scrubbed alive!
FitzRoy is offline  
post #466 of 2438 Old 09-24-2011, 02:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

That's not a cropped shot. The original negatives have more horizontal information than what appeared on TV.

Yes but it depends on whether the original shoot was composed safe for 16x9.

If it wasn't it doesn't matter whether it was a fullap film frame that was exposed ( or 3 perf) in the camera as whilst some of the shots will be okay in 16x9 with the soundtrack area on display some will have lighting stands , crew members , bits of studio in frame etc.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #467 of 2438 Old 09-24-2011, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LexInVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,908
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I was stunned by how many errors were in the opened-up 16:9 versions of Buffy, not to mention how crappy the framing looks with the characters packed into the centre of the picture, but all everyone else cared about was that it was in widescreen. Pffft. Thank **** for the 4:3 US discs.

Such errors also crept into something which was supposedly framed for 16:9 all along - Babylon 5 - and I even caught a few 16:9 flubs in the first season of 24, believe it or not.

Still, I've always had an inkling that they may well have protected for 16:9 on TNG, or at the very least had a large safe area to play with. I just hope that their 16:9 tests have been more judicious than blindly opening up the sides of the frame.

What was wrong with B5? I don't remember any errors on the DVD set other than the obvious VFX messes.
LexInVA is online now  
post #468 of 2438 Old 09-24-2011, 07:34 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post


What was wrong with B5? I don't remember any errors on the DVD set other than the obvious VFX messes.

It was rubbish
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #469 of 2438 Old 09-24-2011, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,428
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

What was wrong with B5? I don't remember any errors on the DVD set other than the obvious VFX messes.

Typical 4:3 framing/16:9 safe errors do occur, like lightstands appearing in shot, doors at the edge of frame being heard to close when they're clearly still open etc. Funnily enough though it's the later seasons which have more errors than the first 2 or 3, which are fine.
Geoff D is online now  
post #470 of 2438 Old 09-25-2011, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
iontyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post


It was rubbish

Thems fightin' words!
iontyre is offline  
post #471 of 2438 Old 09-25-2011, 12:06 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by iontyre View Post


Thems fightin' words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpb1O...e_gdata_player
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #472 of 2438 Old 09-27-2011, 05:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Link to the German release on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.de/Star-Trek-Gener.../dp/B005OUKLG4

December 15

Let's hope the US release is the same or sooner!
nick_danger is offline  
post #473 of 2438 Old 09-27-2011, 06:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Shoot, if it gets us any closer to Borg action and (pipe dream) DS9, I'm in...
Dave Mack is offline  
post #474 of 2438 Old 09-27-2011, 10:51 AM
Member
 
mazzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
An announcement and promotional video possibly tomorrow, according to the Digital Bits.
mazzer is offline  
post #475 of 2438 Old 09-27-2011, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzer View Post

An announcement and promotional video possibly tomorrow, according to the Digital Bits.

So excited! TMI? Don't judge me.
nick_danger is offline  
post #476 of 2438 Old 09-27-2011, 04:04 PM
Member
 
Ghostface1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Multiple digits crossed for this!

Blu since '07

Ghostface1701 is offline  
post #477 of 2438 Old 09-28-2011, 04:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
philnerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

No, I'm 100% right. Paramount will have absolutely NOTHING to do with how the television shows are handled, their role will only be distributor of the final product created by CBS. See here. Google is your friend if you want more proof.

Forget Google, the restoration work done on TOS alone is enough to prove that Paramount had nothing to do with it.

Paramount couldn't even be bothered to make fresh scans of the movies, no way would Brad Grey have ever spent the money on TOS that CBS did.
philnerd is offline  
post #478 of 2438 Old 09-28-2011, 08:36 AM
Member
 
mazzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So, the U.S. disk is officially coming on January 31st. But they also announced that the entire series is being released in HD, so that pores cold water on the cynics who bitched about CBS using this disk just as market research.
mazzer is offline  
post #479 of 2438 Old 09-28-2011, 08:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Fanboyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Something I always wondered about ST: TNG


In "Encounter at Farpoint" I think Wesley was supposed to be Picard's son.
Then they changed it.

The proper setting for sharpness is always0.
Also my Oppo BDP-103D is region free.
That makes me awesome.
Fanboyz is offline  
post #480 of 2438 Old 09-28-2011, 08:58 AM
Member
 
Cap.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzer View Post

So, the U.S. disk is officially coming on January 31st. But they also announced that the entire series is being released in HD, so that pores cold water on the cynics who bitched about CBS using this disk just as market research.

Source?
Cap.T is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
Blu Ray Movies , Star Trek The Next Generation Motion Picture Collection First Contact Generations Insurrection Nemes

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