Panamorph 2.35:1 lens interest - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Tom, the Panamorph 2.35:1 lens would be to convert native 4:3 native projectors to 2.35:1. If you have a 16:9 projector you can use the current Panamorph to convert to 2.35:1.

------------------
Shawn Kelly
Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
Shawn Kelly is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Man E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Wilderness Near Hell
Posts: 4,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If someone could post some background on this I would appreciate it. I seem to be missing a few pieces of the puzzle. Are we talking about "special" DVDs? How many movies are there that have this special encoding?
Confusaled.


------------------
The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!
Our Silent Angels
Please visit The Manny Page!

HBO is guilty of Crimes Against Filmanity!

From Paragraph 44 of the 5th Report and Order: We note in this regard that broadcasters and networks have emphasized their commitment to high definition television.

Our Silent Angels Please visit The Manny Page!
Man E is offline  
post #3 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 2,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Shawn,

I would be interested if it would work with my current coming Panamorph. I would work if there were a new sliding mounting bracket that goes both ways or something like that.

Cameron

------------------
-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
Cameron is offline  
post #4 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: tumbling down the rabbit hole
Posts: 5,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To all:

You would need a projector with a 4:3 display to use this lens.

The increase in brightness ("punch") would be huge. I know, because I've used a similar type of lens on my DL450. Until you see this for yourself, you don't know how much of a difference it makes. It really improves depth.

The extra resolution (76%, just as Shawn stated) is obviously the other benefit.

Of course, this lens would be limited to use with 2.35:1 material.

I think it's a great idea.
Larry Davis is offline  
post #5 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Manny, the special DVD's are those that include enhanced anamorphic versions of the movie which are vertically stretched by 33%. You can show these on a 4:3 projector with the current Panamorph and get the correct 16:9 format with no scaler. If you use the 2.35:1 lens instead, you will have to use a scaler to stretch normal content by 76% or anamorphic by another 33%.

Cameron, that's the idea in mind. There would be a rail that goes both ways so that you have options of 4:3, 16:9 or 2.35 if you had both lenses.

------------------
Shawn Kelly
Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #6 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:41 AM
Member
 
xp800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Although I've been lurking here for over a year, here goes my first post...

I understand that 16:9 corresponds to 1.78:1. 'Most' movies have theatrical aspect ratios of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. When these movies are encoded to anamorphic DVDs, are the black bars that display in the 16:9 frame when you 'unsqueeze' actually encoded as well? I know that they are for non-anamorphic 4:3 'widescreen' movies, thus reducing the number of lines that actually contain picture information. What I have never been sure of is whether anamorphic DVDs above 1.78:1 actually use some of the 480 lines to letterbox the picture for a 16:9 frame.

From what Shawn wrote above, I suspect this is the case. It sounds like some form of external aspect ratio control is required. This would vertically 'stretch' a 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD frame to fill a 4:3 panel (essentially pushing the black bars, if they exist, off the top and bottom of the frame). Correct?

My main motivation for understanding this is that I plan on purchasing a 16:9 projector by year's end, and I would likely be interested in the regular Panamorph for 2.35:1 movies. If external AR control is required (as I am guessing), my pockets may not be deep enough...

Thanks.

- Dieter
xp800 is offline  
post #7 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:44 AM
Member
 
xp800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Looks like my question was answered while I was typing. Thanks Shawn.

- Dieter
xp800 is offline  
post #8 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dean McManis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Santa Clara, CA USA
Posts: 1,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Shawn,

If you could make a 2.35:1 lens for roughly the same price as the current Panamorph, then I would probably buy one.

-Dean.
Dean McManis is offline  
post #9 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Shawn, a related question: can the Panamorph be used if you are using an IMX Processor as well, such as with the 10HT or the Sanyo PLV-60? I am specifically thinking about it's use with a 16:9 LCD projector for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Is there any problem that might arise with using essentially three lenses in that application? Would you lose brightness or resolution, or have some other problem? Will the Panamorph even fit over or in front of the IMX?
smitty is offline  
post #10 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Smitty,

You can use an IMX processor in combination with the Panamorph. Note that the pixel structure is more difficult to see with the Panamorph since it squeezes the image. So, you may not need the IMX. If you want to keep the IMX though, the extra space it needs means you have to have a throw distance of at least about 1.85 times the image width.

------------------
Shawn Kelly
Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #11 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
hsitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Seattle
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by xp800:
From what Shawn wrote above, I suspect this is the case. It sounds like some form of external aspect ratio control is required. . . .

If external AR control is required (as I am guessing), my pockets may not be deep enough...
For people using an HTPC, isn't the YXY PC-software capable of providing this "external" aspect ratio control? If so, then "external" doesn't nececessarily mean an "external" box, just "external" as in "external" to the normal DVD player software. -- Herb

hsitz is offline  
post #12 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
Digitalhorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't get this. I can understand where the panamorph will help with Anamorphic dvd's, but a 2.35 panamorph will require processing to stretch the image.

Anamorphic dvd's have roughly 33% more resolution that standard. This increased resolution is actually encoded on the disk. This 2.35 to one idea doesn't increase the real resolution at all, it just magically creates more resolution using a processor. But since this extra resolution isn't on the disk, instead of getting a more detailed image, you just get the same image, but with more lines.

So in reality, you're NOT getting 76% more resolution, you're getting the exact SAME resolution exact spread over more lines. There's no additional image information that is reavealed by using a 2.35 lens. In fact, it could worsen quality if you have a lousy scaler.
Digitalhorde is offline  
post #13 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Herb, the AR control comment is generic. Vertical stretch will be necessary to use the 2.35 lens on a 4:3 projector, either by the projector itself, an HTPC or stand-alone scaler.

------------------
Shawn Kelly
Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #14 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Digitalhorde,

You are certainly correct that the image must be vertically stretched and that a poor scaler could result in a poor image. What is a certainty is that the image will be brighter, the feint top and bottom gray bars will be removed for 2:35 content, and the signal will be able to access significantly more pixels to create the image. As far as resolution, the basic question is whether a display pixel count greater than the source can be used to provide a better image. Again, this depends on the scaling technology used, but I think you'll find a lot of support in the affirmative in various threads of the forum.

------------------
Shawn Kelly
Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #15 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MrWigggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 6,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To display a 2.35:1 movie full field on a 4:3 projector requires some special scaling.

The Rock can do it. An HTPC can do it. But you are going to be hard pressed to find any other scalers that can do the operation. It is definitely a special setting.

I would also like to mention that there is a level of dimenishing returns here because none of the material out there is recorded any more anamorphic than 16:9. Eventually your horizontal resolution will be the limiting factor. This is the minor problem TI is having currently when trying to present 2.35:1 movies off of their 1.25:1 SXGA DMD. The vertical 1024 is fine but the horizontal 1280 could use some more pixels.

I would recommend to diehard 2.35:1 fans to use the normal panamorph with a 16:9 projector. (and yes you will more than likely still need a special signal processor).

It just makes more sense. However, in practice who knows if it would actually be worth it.

-Mr. Wigggles

------------------
The Mothership is now boarding.

The Mothership is now boarding.
MrWigggles is offline  
post #16 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the REAL cinema experience at home: THAT's the trick.
Posts: 4,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the 2.35 anamorphic lens to me is the real stuff: 2.35movies ( anamorphic enhanced or not) will benefit much more than using an anamorphic only lens: many projectors today are capable of digital anamorphism to benefit from 16:9 enhanced dvds ( wheter they are 1.85 or 2.35 format). But none can do a digital squeeze to use the entire 4:3 or 5:4 panel capability.

So what to do ?
1. use a scaler like the Vigatec or a Cinematrix player or a Radeon HTPC, thus 3 of the most popular and affordable http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif systems: they will send the projector a pure 2.35 anamorphicaly enhanced image, that the projector will output distorted of course.
2. there intervenes the 2.35 anamorphic lens: it will put things back in order and physically allow all pixels to be used to display the image, meaning the entire luminosity will also be used: you end up seeing a 2.35 movie without black bars, anamorphically enhanced, with all pixels (like 1024x768 if the projector uses XGA panels) and all the brightness capacity! It should be stunning ! Like what 3DLPs in digital cinemas use ( if I am correct ).
To summarize the effect, it's like if your projector was all of a sudden using 2.35 anamorphic capable panels! and you end up seeing 1024 pixels horizontally and 768 pixels vertically instead of 1024x430 pixels ( no digital anamorphism function on the projector, no Panamorph lens). you gain also 78% of brightness ! and no more "grey-black bars" http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Take into account these scalers and HTPC or Cinematrix can anamorphose also non anamorphic 2.35 movies ( there are still such dvds and ALL 2.35:1 laserdiscs !!) so the market is quite important. there's about 40% 2.35 movies I think ( check IMDB ).

These are my 2 cents and how I understand it.

regards
David


------------------
for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.

[This message has been edited by David600 (edited 05-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by David600 (edited 05-24-2001).]
David600 is offline  
post #17 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: tumbling down the rabbit hole
Posts: 5,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If your scaler supports leterbox to "anamorphic" upconversion, all you need to is apply that to your anamorphic 2.35:1 source and voila - the 2.35:1 movie fills the full height of your display. I believe the CI from AVScience supports this. This won't work for non-anamorphic material, unless you have an HTPC and your projector accepts it. Then all of this is academic. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
Larry Davis is offline  
post #18 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 12:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Lemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Grand Blanc, MI USA
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mr. Wiggles,

The Crystal Image Scaler will also fill the entire panel with a 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD. It seems to do it quite well I might add.

To all,

Even though this extra 33% resolution is not encoded on the disc, the perception should be more resolution(I beleive Larry Davis can back this up). Especially if you have a lower res projector that is now allowing more detail to be shown.

Jeff
Jeff Lemke is offline  
post #19 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think that this is a great idea.

There would be a little more pre-processing required than with the 16:9 Panamorph, but it seems that all of the great, truly theatrical movies are 2.35:1.

The preprocessing could be performed by either an HTPC, the Rock or pre-stretching in the projector itself (like D-ILA).

Having said that, I think that a price over $2K is getting quite steep. That is more than it costs for some of the entry-level projectors!

Mark Hunter
Technical Director, Home Theater Products
Datacolor, Inc.
Mark Hunter is offline  
post #20 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: tumbling down the rabbit hole
Posts: 5,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Jeff,
Yes, the combination of the extra resolution and much brighter image yields a picture with much greater depth. It is very impressive and not subtle. It's easy to create the illusion of higher resolution source material with anamorphic lenses and (relatively) low res projectors. It works - and it works great, particularly with our HTPC's, which have excellent scaling capabilities.

The one potential downside is the widening of verical pixel gap. With an ISCO scope lens, this was noticeable on my 800x600 machine. Cinemascope lenses stretch the horizontal image by 2x. The 2.35:1 Panamorph would be the equivalent of 1.76x. So that would exaggerate pixel gap less than cinemascope lenses. I've been told that pixel gap is not an issue with D-ILA's. My ISCO 1 lens stretched the image by 1.44x and I didn't notice an increse in pixel gap. So hopefully this wouldn't be an issue with a 235 Panny. Just trying to keep you informed. This is a great idea and someone is going to do it, eventually.
Larry Davis is offline  
post #21 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 12:49 PM
Member
 
randmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Long Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A remote controllable motorized slide to change between 16:9 and 2.35:1 would be get my interest. Can I assume there is no refocus/rezooming required when switching between the two lenses?

------------------
Randy
G20/CI/GrayHawk
randmac is offline  
post #22 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 01:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Chris Satterlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA, USA
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Larry,

I don't understand your last post. Since the Panamorph doesn't stretch the image, how can the pixel gap be widened? I can see how this would be the case with the ISCO, but not the Panamorph. With the Panamorph, the vertical gaps should stay the same and the horizontal gaps should be compressed.

- Chris
Chris Satterlee is offline  
post #23 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 01:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: tumbling down the rabbit hole
Posts: 5,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Chris,
Either approach (horizontal expansion versus vertical compression) yields the same results in regards to vertical pixel gap.

EDIT: I'm really running out of time, so let me put it this way: you have to zoom the image into the screen with the ISCO until it's height is within your screens frame. With the Panamorph, you have to zoom the image out until it's width is just within your screen's frame. The end result is identical! Think about it. Maybe they should put this in Scientific American as a brain teaser (don't worry, this stumped me too at first http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif).

[This message has been edited by Larry Davis (edited 05-24-2001).]
Larry Davis is offline  
post #24 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 01:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
KFung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How about throw ratio?

I think most people would want to use a 2.35 Panamorph in an installation alongside the regular Panamorph, how will image size compare? Will it just compress the image more? I know I would rather have a wider 2.35 image to go with the higher resolution and brightness. Maybe when it is interchanged with the 16:9 Panamorph it would produce and image with the same surface area so you would get the same brightness on the screen? Is that possible? I know that the current Panamorph just compresses a 4:3 image with no expansion of any kind.

Regards,

Kam Fung
KFung is offline  
post #25 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JoeFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA, USA
Posts: 1,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So far the discussion seems to be limited to NTSC DVD. If you include HDTV in the list of source material, the PC based cards could possibly apply custom aspect ratio and scaling to 2.35 material. The current scaling and resolutions are set in firmware, but software playback of either recorded or live HDTV is pretty close to becoming a reality. When software playback is used, custom resolution and aspect ratio control can easily be added.

When this is the case, there would be an advantage to having a 2.35 lens for widescreen HDTV movies using a standard 4:3 projector. Of course, when 16:9 HDTV video projectors become more common, the current Panamoroph will provide the same advantage.

JoeFloyd is offline  
post #26 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the REAL cinema experience at home: THAT's the trick.
Posts: 4,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
well, it's about time maybe for manufacturers to produce 2.35 panels with digital anamorphism capacity http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.
David600 is offline  
post #27 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 02:53 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The Vigatec also supports custom aspect ratio control.

The Dwin Transvision and the Seleco DLP projectors have their own built in aspect ratio control that will allow for the use of this lens as well.

In in as well!!!!

------------------
Alan Gouger
Thanks for supporting AV Science.
www.avscience.com
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #28 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 03:01 PM
PAP
AVS Special Member
 
PAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Before I commit to another pre-order, I'd like to have my hands on the product I paid for about a year ago and am still waiting on....

I might have interest, but I'll await my evaluation of the "panamorph classic" before deciding on the new version.

I would echo the comments above, however, it would have to be able to switch in and out with the original on some sort of extended track.

Heck, maybe i'll wire up some old model railroad set on the ceiling and have a little engine pull the lenses back and forth out of a little cubbyhole in the wall ala Mister Rogers neighborhood.



------------------
Lex MC1/Sunfire CG/Hales Rev3's x3/M&K SS150 tripoles/Quadscan/Plus UP1100/Homemade screen

Good, cheap, easy - pick any two.
PAP is offline  
post #29 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MrWigggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 6,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Chris,

The idea behind all of this is that the user will be utilizing a wider image.

So yes the panamorph won't be making things wider, but the whole point of the extra brightness and pixel density is so that the user will be free to zoom the image larger.

-Mr. Wigggles

------------------
The Mothership is now boarding.

The Mothership is now boarding.
MrWigggles is offline  
post #30 of 86 Old 05-24-2001, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MrWigggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 6,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
PAP,

It is officially the McPanamorph Classic Royale

-Jon

------------------
The Mothership is now boarding.

The Mothership is now boarding.
MrWigggles is offline  
Closed Thread Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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