New Canon TX1 is what we have all been waiting for! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 55 Old 02-22-2007, 11:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mpgxsvcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The new Canon TX1 is what we have all been waiting for:

720p 30 FPS Widescreen in a ~36 megabit per second 4:2:0(I think that is right) codec. This thing will be outstanding at $500. Just wait this will put HD in everyone's hands!

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14903
mpgxsvcd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 04:43 AM
Member
 
Kestin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The only problem I see for someone like me (new to HD camcorders and just camcorders in general) is the storage. Looks like you can get about 15 mins on a 4GB SD card at the highest resolution. Am I wrong? Looks like I would need a bunch of 4GB SD cards.

Kestin
Kestin M is offline  
post #3 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 07:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
GodobeHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The other problem may be the maximum data rate in video mode for 720p30 is only 4.48mbps compared to HDV's 25mbps. It seems not only will it eat up lots of mem in 4gb SD card in no time but also you get poor video quality...
But it may be a great digi camera though.
GodobeHD is offline  
post #4 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 07:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mpgxsvcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That is wrong! It is not 4.48 mbps. It is 4.48 MB/sec! There is a big difference. Actually a factor of 8! This camera stores the video at 32 megabits per second! You have to convert megabits to mega bytes to get the 4.48 MB/sec. This camera also is 4:2:0 progressive I believe. That makes a huge difference.

32 gigabyte SD cards will be available by the end of the year. That will make this camera top notch.
mpgxsvcd is offline  
post #5 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 07:59 AM
gvc
Advanced Member
 
gvc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Las Vegas NW
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This is not technically a camcorder...its a camera that also records video...just a few steps above any modern cellphone
gvc is offline  
post #6 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 08:02 AM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
I do think the future of Video Cameras is not going to be tape-based. I'd like to know what the images from this camera look like.
Cyrano is offline  
post #7 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 09:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
GodobeHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd View Post

That is wrong! It is not 4.48 mbps. It is 4.48 MB/sec! There is a big difference. Actually a factor of 8! This camera stores the video at 32 megabits per second! You have to convert megabits to mega bytes to get the 4.48 MB/sec. This camera also is 4:2:0 progressive I believe. That makes a huge difference.

32 gigabyte SD cards will be available by the end of the year. That will make this camera top notch.

well it looks like it is indeed 4.48mB/sec. 32GB SD may cost more than the cam itself.
GodobeHD is offline  
post #8 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 03:57 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodobeHD View Post

32GB SD may cost more than the cam itself.

It wasn't that long ago that 250MB flashmemory cost what 2 gigs cost now. We seem to be in a rapidly accelerating technological advancement era.


I thought the limiting factor in silicon memory was that it was too slow for video. I guess there could be a faster "buffer" ram in the camera to make up for it.
Interesting times.

BTW: I'm not sure I agree with the OP's title of this thread. I do think this camera points to an interesting direction. But I would like to see the PQ of this camera.
Cyrano is offline  
post #9 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 06:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,213
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd View Post

The new Canon TX1 is what we have all been waiting for:

720p 30 FPS Widescreen in a ~36 megabit per second 4:2:0(I think that is right) codec. This thing will be outstanding at $500. Just wait this will put HD in everyone's hands!

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14903

Not me. I prefer my HD cams @ 1080i thanks!
Ken Ross is offline  
post #10 of 55 Old 02-23-2007, 08:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
TonyW79SFV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA - NE San Fernando Valley
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Not me. I prefer my HD cams @ 1080i thanks!

Not only that, but camcorders that records at 720/60p or 1080/60i for more fluid motion (video look). 30p will look strobish; that camera does record 60p but only at 320x240 I believe.
TonyW79SFV is offline  
post #11 of 55 Old 02-24-2007, 12:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,213
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Very true Tony. I made that mistake with the JVC when it first came out and the 'strobe' type motion drove me nuts.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #12 of 55 Old 02-24-2007, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I for one hate the 60i look; it just screams "VIDEO!" and IMO the quality goal should be to reach the level of film just like digital projectors goal is to reach CRT level.

I always use progressive mode over normal 60i mode with my current older digital camcorder, because it looks about a hundred times better aesthetically to me. 60i looks TOO fluid and too videoy, which is the worst look in the world if you're into filmmaking. That looks makes me want to burn the footage to be honest; it just screams "home video" due to the hyper realistic motion. Progressive mode looks pretty strobey on the LCD monitor, but it never looks that way through the viewfinder or when played back on another display.

60i looks simply terrible to me though. I'm into filmmaking and 60i is the worst offender when it comes to giving that terrible Live News video look. It's just plain ugly. 60p isn't much better; It's great for slow motion though.

Too each his own I suppose. 60i/p is fine for shooting nature stuff or even regular home videos, but a big big no-no for movie making. It simply doesn't look fantastical enough. I noticed when looking at actors perform their lines at 60i versus 30p it's like watching an actor read lines versus watching a character in a story. 30p or 24p adds that more surreal movie like aesthetic, whereas 60i makes you feel like you're watching the news or something.
MTyson is offline  
post #13 of 55 Old 02-24-2007, 07:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,213
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

I for one hate the 60i look; it just screams "VIDEO!" and IMO the quality goal should be to reach the level of film just like digital projectors goal is to reach CRT level.

Well that depends on the look you're looking for doesn't it? I prefer the 'live' reality look and a movie look is not what I want when shooting vacation, friends and family. To me there's nothing better than shooting video that gives me the impression I'm looking out of a window. Film will never do that nor is it intended for that. Film is generally used to remove the look of reality and put the viewer in a 'fantasy world' so to speak.

As far as a 'hyper reality look', take a look at documentaries and nature video on Discovery HD, HDNet etc. To me there's nothing better for that kind of material.

Each to his own.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #14 of 55 Old 02-24-2007, 08:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
mdrums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Well that depends on the look you're looking for doesn't it? I prefer the 'live' reality look and a movie look is not what I want when shooting vacation, friends and family. To me there's nothing better than shooting video that gives me the impression I'm looking out of a window. Film will never do that nor is it intended for that. Film is generally used to remove the look of reality and put the viewer in a 'fantasy world' so to speak.

As far as a 'hyper reality look', take a look at documentaries and nature video on Discovery HD, HDNet etc. To me there's nothing better for that kind of material.

Each to his own.

Everyone I have to agree with Ken on this one. I want a live real to life look for my home video's. I'd rather add the effects if I want to in editing. Movies to me do not look like real life...ok for some movies to set a certain tone and mood for the movie but not for home video's.

Mikes Stuff
McIntosh MC207 Amps.........................DarbyVision Darblet
Marantz AV8801 Processor.................Da-Lite Screen
Klipsch Reference Series 7.2................Panasonic BluRay BDT500
Epson Pro 6010 Projector.....................Sony Playstation used for SACD and BluRay
mdrums is offline  
post #15 of 55 Old 02-25-2007, 06:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
blackbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Agreed... Home video is not film and IMO, home video shot as film would look just as out of place as a film in 60i
blackbill is offline  
post #16 of 55 Old 02-25-2007, 08:50 AM
Newbie
 
filmmaker1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

I for one hate the 60i look; it just screams "VIDEO!" and IMO the quality goal should be to reach the level of film just like digital projectors goal is to reach CRT level.

I always use progressive mode over normal 60i mode with my current older digital camcorder, because it looks about a hundred times better aesthetically to me. 60i looks TOO fluid and too videoy, which is the worst look in the world if you're into filmmaking. That looks makes me want to burn the footage to be honest; it just screams "home video" due to the hyper realistic motion. Progressive mode looks pretty strobey on the LCD monitor, but it never looks that way through the viewfinder or when played back on another display.

60i looks simply terrible to me though. I'm into filmmaking and 60i is the worst offender when it comes to giving that terrible Live News video look. It's just plain ugly. 60p isn't much better; It's great for slow motion though.

Too each his own I suppose. 60i/p is fine for shooting nature stuff or even regular home videos, but a big big no-no for movie making. It simply doesn't look fantastical enough. I noticed when looking at actors perform their lines at 60i versus 30p it's like watching an actor read lines versus watching a character in a story. 30p or 24p adds that more surreal movie like aesthetic, whereas 60i makes you feel like you're watching the news or something.

the MTyson's opinion rules because progressive rules.. 1080 yes but 1080p is far better than 1080i.. 24p or 25p is worth of big screen.. 60i or 50i is worth of a plasma display and period..
filmmaker1977 is offline  
post #17 of 55 Old 02-25-2007, 08:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mpgxsvcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvc View Post

This is not technically a camcorder...its a camera that also records video...just a few steps above any modern cellphone

If you believe that then you have never actually shot video with a Canon camera. Their MJPEG progressive clips are unmatched by any sub $1000 camera or camcorder. In fact they actually offer more vivid color than some professional video cameras. This thing will be far far beyond what any cell phone could ever hope to be. And it will rival most professional vidoe cameras.
mpgxsvcd is offline  
post #18 of 55 Old 02-26-2007, 06:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
blackbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd View Post

If you believe that then you have never actually shot video with a Canon camera. Their MJPEG progressive clips are unmatched by any sub $1000 camera or camcorder. In fact they actually offer more vivid color than some professional video cameras. This thing will be far far beyond what any cell phone could ever hope to be. And it will rival most professional vidoe cameras.

Well... Let's not go too far overboard shall we?

Here's a quote for ya....

Quote:


Though Motion JPEG is intraframe and may potentially display better motion than interframe MPEG compressions, big promises from tiny HD camcorders have been made before, as in the Sanyo VPC-HD1, and failed to stand up to comparisons with larger, more expensive models.


Taken from this article:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...tal-Camera.htm
blackbill is offline  
post #19 of 55 Old 02-28-2007, 08:37 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbill quoting a camcorderinfo article View Post

Though Motion JPEG is intraframe and may potentially display better motion than interframe MPEG compressions, big promises from tiny HD camcorders have been made before, as in the Sanyo VPC-HD1, and failed to stand up to comparisons with larger, more expensive models.

Blackbill: Would this cameras output be able to be edited with Sony Vegas 6/7?
And have you seen this camera's output? How does it look? Compared to regular SD?
I use a Canon ZR200 right now and want to upgrade this summer to something with higher res. The Canon HV20 looks good (don't like mic placement though) but would this camera work?

Thanks - your postings have helped me in the past.
Cyrano is offline  
post #20 of 55 Old 02-28-2007, 08:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
blackbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry guy... can't be much help this time. I have NOOO idea what this little cam is all about... I can't even tell ya if Vegas will handle it.

I have seen MJPEG before though, and it does produce a top notch quality... there is no denying that. But it remains to be seen as to whether or not the cam itself is any good. Your video is as good as the weakest link so to speak, so if the lens for example is not up to snuff then the quality of mjpeg won't make a difference.

As stated in camcorderinfo.com... this sort of thing was tried before with Sanyo and failed. Bottom line is that you don't take ANY of this stuff too seriously until you see the cold hard reviews.
blackbill is offline  
post #21 of 55 Old 02-28-2007, 09:00 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Man - that was fast service! Thanks.

I'll keep my eyes open for reviews.
Cyrano is offline  
post #22 of 55 Old 03-02-2007, 01:51 PM
Senior Member
 
DanQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lake Zurich IL
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm seriously thinking about the TX1 to take on back packing trips to make HD videos. I'm not worried about the 13 min record time on the 4G SD card. I only take shots that are 20 seconds to minute long at a time. With the cost of SD cards coming down all the time, this isn't a problem. It looks like batteries are cheap. I wonder if one battery will last long enough to fill one 4G SD card? MJPEG is less compressed than MEPG4 so it should be easier to edit, although it will take more disk space, but typically I'm cutting 1 hour down to 20-30 minutes and big HDD are cheap. The CCD is 1/2.5" and is much larger than other HD camcorders, so just looking at specs it should take high quality movies.

Here's my question and confusion. If this camera can take 7 mpixel stills how come it can "only" do 720p (1280x720= 921600)?
What am I missing?

The size and built in lens cover are an obvious advantage for the camping, outdoor environment. And the BEST feature = NO tape drive. My last 3 camcorders have all failed in the tape transports. I'm NEVER buying a tape or DVD or HDD in a camcorder AGAIN! the fewer moving parts the better.
DanQ is offline  
post #23 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mpgxsvcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

Blackbill: Would this cameras output be able to be edited with Sony Vegas 6/7?
And have you seen this camera's output? How does it look? Compared to regular SD?

Thanks - your postings have helped me in the past.

I have not seen the output from this camera yet. However, it is the same format as the other Canon Cameras and the MJPEG video from those cameras can not be used with Sony's Video Vegas straight out of the box. If you want to use Video Vegas then this might not be the right camera for you. If you are willing to use another app like Windows Movie Maker then it will work quite well.

Basically any and every SD(480i) sucks! I will take 480p from any Canon Camera over even professional 480i SD. This new Canon Camera will provide 30 FPS video at HD resolutions. It will stun you! The MJPEG format actually records more color depth than HDV. I believe the Canon MJPEG is actually 4:2:0 which is outstanding!
mpgxsvcd is offline  
post #24 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 01:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mpgxsvcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbill View Post

As stated in camcorderinfo.com... this sort of thing was tried before with Sanyo and failed. Bottom line is that you don't take ANY of this stuff too seriously until you see the cold hard reviews.

No this has never been tried before! The Sanyo is MPG4 which is too compressed and lacks the color depth of MJPEG. As far as the space requirements go. This camera will actually hold 27.2 minutes of video on an 8 GB card. That is plenty for me. If you need more then just buy a couple of cards. Here you can find the 8 GB cards for $50 from a reputable retailer!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820211148
mpgxsvcd is offline  
post #25 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 02:26 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd View Post

No this has never been tried before! The Sanyo is MPG4 which is too compressed and lacks the color depth of MJPEG. As far as the space requirements go. This camera will actually hold 27.2 minutes of video on an 8 GB card. That is plenty for me. If you need more then just buy a couple of cards. Here you can find the 8 GB cards for $50 from a reputable retailer!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820211148

Good info. Looking forward to review a users review of this cam.
Cyrano is offline  
post #26 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dp70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree, this camera is very intriguing! I've been playing with the 640x480 30fps movie mode on a Canon SD630, and its progressive video really looks incredible for the size of the camera (deck of cards) - noticeably better than video from my much larger 3-chip Canon GL1 MiniDV camcorder.

If the TX1 can achieve the same quality at 720p resolution, and with better audio quality (the SD630 records only crappy 11 KHz mono audio), this will be a great little camera for home movies. Progressive video using square pixels is the way of the future.

Canon's site says the TX1 will output 1080i via component. I assume that it can output 720p as well, or else what's the point?
dp70 is offline  
post #27 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 03:17 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
My Canon S3IS has some nice video modes too. 640X480 30fps and 320X240 60fps.
The sound is stereo. (44100 khz) Two pretty good mics are located on either side of the lens. The sound is quite good and it will record for a VERY long time in stereo sound only. Nice way to pick up a live performance.

This camera isn't as small as I would prefer. But the Optical image stabilized 12X Optical zoom can really do some nice tricks. And the swingout LCD screen lets me shoot high and low with ease. It's quite a camera. Amazing features! Won't fit in a shirt pocket but it fits nicely in a jacket pocket.

I hope the camera in this thread works out. My Canon ZR200 did some nice work this last fall but I need higher resolution and optical stabilization.
Cyrano is offline  
post #28 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 04:32 PM
Member
 
callista123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would assume that the camera would require SDHC Class 6 and from the reviews, the card does not look like Class 6. I find a few 4GB Class 6 cards in Amazon for less than 50 bucks though..
callista123 is offline  
post #29 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 07:36 PM
Member
 
Bergna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Canon markets the TX1 as a still camera that has HD video capability, so how well it will perform still remains to be seen, but according to this review, "One shoud not expect that a still camera using a dated compression such as Motion JPEG should compete with camcorders using HDV and AVCHD."
Bergna is offline  
post #30 of 55 Old 03-06-2007, 08:04 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergna View Post

Canon markets the TX1 as a still camera that has HD video capability, so how well it will perform still remains to be seen, but according to this review, "One shoud not expect that a still camera using a dated compression such as Motion JPEG should compete with camcorders using HDV and AVCHD."

This is still just a review of the theory, not the camera. A review will come along soon, I hope.
Cyrano is offline  
Reply Camcorders

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