Avatar 2, 3, 4 and Five! Glasses Free 3D the next phase? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 81 Old 05-08-2020, 05:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dfa973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EU
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 1210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
But I think there will be new interest in 3D by late 2021. It won't be like 2009. But it might get the ball moving again.
3D in cinema has "vaned" around the world thanks to post-conversion, higher ticket prices, and mediocre scripts. All of those reasons have managed to destroy the 2000 3D resurgence (and not for the first time in history, I might say, this seems like a cyclical thing..., sadly)
The future Avatar's movies will not be post-converted, hopefully not with mediocre scripts or higher ticket prices, but the interest in 3D is not there anymore.
I mean that after all of this time and the pandemic, the Avatar's probably will not be enough to re-spark the interest in native-3D entertainment.
dfa973 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 81 Old 05-09-2020, 03:44 AM
Member
 
PCummins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
3D in cinema has "vaned" around the world thanks to post-conversion, higher ticket prices, and mediocre scripts. All of those reasons have managed to destroy the 2000 3D resurgence
I'd say it's more very conservative 3D being used as an after-thought for movies, not many directors really pushed the limits of what could be done. Avatar as a movie seemed to have sunk without much of a trace, I recall reading a thread about it that the colonialism aspects of the film and portrayal of the Resources Development Administration/Marines helped maintain a subtle overall negative view of the film. See "Why Avatar is a Truly Dangerous Film as an example.

Apart from that the fact people have to wear glasses seemed to be a big reason why they're not keen on 3D along with the higher ticket prices and restricted screenings (for myself, actually getting to a 3D screening is increasingly difficult). Home 3D also was also difficult to implement at times with good quality considering the incompatible Active 3D glasses early on, the Active vs Passive camps and then the lack of new 3D TV's post-2016.

I'll definitely be interested to see Avatar sequels, I'm just not sure at this point whether I'd be able to see them in 3D given our local cinema chains are limiting 3D screenings significantly, even with Avengers: Endgame and Alita it was a struggle to get into a screening.
PCummins is offline  
post #63 of 81 Old 05-09-2020, 05:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 2
I cannot wait to see Avatar 2. Any news about no glasses 3d for home viewing?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Living room HT
Front channels...3 Klipsch RP160Ms, 4 RP150Ms surrounds,Yamaha CXA5100, 2 Dune HD PRO, 2 Yamaha p2500s, 2 Nobsound 50wpc, UnRaid, APC HT power center, Pioneer bluray player, PS3, XBOX ONE,
Xilica xp4080 crossover

Last edited by NBPk402; 05-09-2020 at 06:01 AM.
NBPk402 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 81 Old 05-09-2020, 08:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,551
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 628
Well, Avatar is probably not coming out in Dec, 2021 because all of the studios are shutdown so no post processing, my guess.
3DBob is offline  
post #65 of 81 Old 05-18-2020, 05:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Well, Avatar is probably not coming out in Dec, 2021 because all of the studios are shutdown so no post processing, my guess.
I thought it was already done...just waiting for its turn.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Living room HT
Front channels...3 Klipsch RP160Ms, 4 RP150Ms surrounds,Yamaha CXA5100, 2 Dune HD PRO, 2 Yamaha p2500s, 2 Nobsound 50wpc, UnRaid, APC HT power center, Pioneer bluray player, PS3, XBOX ONE,
Xilica xp4080 crossover
NBPk402 is offline  
post #66 of 81 Old 05-18-2020, 09:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Hasn't been any news of it moving so far. Avatar 2 set for Dec 2021. That's still more than a year away.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #67 of 81 Old 05-19-2020, 05:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dfa973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EU
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 1210
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCummins View Post
....the fact people have to wear glasses seemed to be a big reason why they're not keen on 3D....
No, the glasses are not the big reason!
In the past 3D glasses were horrible and it did not stop people from going to 3D movies.
The present 3D passive glasses are WAY more comfortable than any previous model.
Yes, some people can't stand them anyway, regardless of their type. Those people are a small minority or are having various eye problems. That minority is NOT the problem.
The glasses are NOT the real problem of 3D.
3D was killed this time by laziness (post-conversion), greed (higher ticket prices), and mediocre scripts/stories.
3D is a tool, not the end in itself.
You can't slap 3D on every movie you want without using 3D to enhance the story.
Most studios just did that.
The end.

Maybe in the next 3D cycle, they learn better from this experience...
dfa973 is offline  
post #68 of 81 Old 05-19-2020, 08:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,551
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 628
According to these links, Avatar 2 is not done as shooting in New Zealand has stopped and scenes are being shot for all sequels at once. It looks like they are still trying to make the December, 2021 release of Avatar 2, though, as SPFX people are still working from home now.

https://www.slashfilm.com/avatar-2-d...james-cameron/

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainm...n-8359681.html

I personally think it will get a minor 3D release and bigger 2D release like most of the Marvel and Star War movies. By 2021 and lack of releases of 3D between now and then, 3D will have slowly come to a halt. Most theaters are locked-down, and many will go bankrupt by the end of 2020. And if Cameron/Avatar movies were betting on wiz-bang 3D tech to be available by late 2021--theaters can't afford to invest in it. Maybe one or two in CA, but doubt many across the US. And now that IMAX has abandoned 3D, not sure what will happen.

This is an interesting read about Disney now owning the franchise: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/26/jame...or-disney.html
3DBob is offline  
post #69 of 81 Old 05-19-2020, 04:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
No, the glasses are not the big reason!
In the past 3D glasses were horrible and it did not stop people from going to 3D movies.
The present 3D passive glasses are WAY more comfortable than any previous model.
Yes, some people can't stand them anyway, regardless of their type. Those people are a small minority or are having various eye problems. That minority is NOT the problem.
The glasses are NOT the real problem of 3D.
3D was killed this time by laziness (post-conversion), greed (higher ticket prices), and mediocre scripts/stories.
3D is a tool, not the end in itself.
You can't slap 3D on every movie you want without using 3D to enhance the story.
Most studios just did that.
The end.

Maybe in the next 3D cycle, they learn better from this experience...
Some misconceptions here. Those that like 3D, like us are actually in the minority, not the other way around. Post conversion is not laziness, it's expensive requiring many hands on work. Higher ticket prices does not equal greed, it is to recoup the production cost of 3D which has always been an added cost at the ticket booth.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #70 of 81 Old 05-20-2020, 04:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dfa973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EU
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 1210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Some misconceptions here. Those that like 3D, like us are actually in the minority, not the other way around.
I did not say that the general population seeks to view 3D movies intentionally - if it's good, they'll enjoy it, if it's bad, they'll avoid it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Post conversion is not laziness, it's expensive requiring many hands on work.
Initially, post-conversion WAS expensive - but now is less expensive than shooting native 3D, and not many directors and DOPs want or know what to do with a stereoscopic camera. Hence, the post-conversion craze. Easy, painless (LIDAR and/or depth info captured at the shooting), mostly automatic, and cheap. What's not to like?
And yes, they're lazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Higher ticket prices does not equal greed, it is to recoup the production cost of 3D which has always been an added cost at the ticket booth.
Cheaper post-conversion every year was a boon for studios!
And yes, it's greed.
dfa973 is offline  
post #71 of 81 Old 05-20-2020, 11:23 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
Initially, post-conversion WAS expensive - but now is less expensive than shooting native 3D, and not many directors and DOPs want or know what to do with a stereoscopic camera. Hence, the post-conversion craze. Easy, painless (LIDAR and/or depth info captured at the shooting), mostly automatic, and cheap. What's not to like?
And yes, they're lazy.


Cheaper post-conversion every year was a boon for studios!
And yes, it's greed.
There is no post-conversion craze. Nearly every movie now is post-converted as well as the vast majority of 3D films over the past 10 years are mostly post-converted. There's literally like two directors left (Ang Lee and James Cameron) shooting S3D. Everything else is post-converted. The studio puts up the cost for post conversion in the production budget and it's always in the realm of 10m or more and it does not cost less now than it used to. If anything, like everything else, the costs go up.

They have a large team working hands on for months making sure the 3D is correct. In some respects post conversion is better than native 3D because the 3D image is not baked in, you can derive the 3D image from a 2D source digitally. As I've said for years now, with Hollywood movies, I find converted movies equal to native movies. If you take away converted films you only have 1 or 2 films releasing a year. The only one last year was Gemini Man. Post-conversion allows directors to work with what they know and let those that know 3D, do what they do best.

Let's face it. Most directors prefer to shoot in 2D and that has not changed since Avatar. There was a bubble for awhile. Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Michael Bay, Ridley Scott. All of them are out on 3D. The only one that might still shoot 3D would be Bay, since he's a real 3D guy but nothing since The Last Knight.

The only cash-in effect that ever existed was the first couple years after Avatar but that hasn't been the case since at least 2013 when Gravity was released. Avatar was the example to follow in how 3D should look. But converted films shortly after didn't have that same aesthetic appeal. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The 3D depth is very minimal. That's because conversion methods then with software was not as good as it is today.

Other post-conversion technology like the JVC software used to convert I, Robot. Watching that movie now, there's almost no wow factor for 3D. And that JVC software was supposed to be the go-to method for converting old movies into 3D. That will never work. 3D is more than just a click of a button. Conversion requires hands on, frame by frame work with rotoscoping and painting. It's much more work post-converting than shooting native 3D which is why it takes a large team and many months of work. This is not a lazy endeavor.

I love the time-honored tradition of native 3D, I shoot S3D with many 3D cameras but I also welcome new methods and ideas of achieving the same result.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #72 of 81 Old 05-21-2020, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,551
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 628
Conversion also allows multiple object convergence and pushing and pulling objects closer or farther way from the screen window. This allows for human and cgi interaction. Cameron also uses this with screen action, so not every scene is always shot in complete 3D.
3DBob is offline  
post #73 of 81 Old 05-21-2020, 11:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Right, the convergence for the most part is locked in with native 3D. Post conversion allows more freedom.

It might surprise some to know that nearly every native 3D film since Avatar (including Avatar) has some 3D post conversion included. I've also found that Avatar is not nearly as spectacular as it could have been as far as 3D is concerned. There's hardly any out of screen effects. I would rank the 3D in Endgame as better overall.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #74 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 12:40 AM
Member
 
PCummins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
No, the glasses are not the big reason! In the past 3D glasses were horrible and it did not stop people from going to 3D movies. The present 3D passive glasses are WAY more comfortable than any previous model.
Yes, some people can't stand them anyway, regardless of their type. Those people are a small minority or are having various eye problems. That minority is NOT the problem. The glasses are NOT the real problem of 3D.
3D was killed this time by laziness (post-conversion), greed (higher ticket prices), and mediocre scripts/stories. 3D is a tool, not the end in itself.
You can't slap 3D on every movie you want without using 3D to enhance the story. Most studios just did that. The end.
Well, when I've offered it to my friends they genuinely aren't interested in 3D, they just don't see 3D as being a value-add to the experience of watching the movie even if they get it for free (watching at home). They'd watch the 2D film without any issues, however the inclusion of needing glasses to see 3D puts them off as the experience isn't worth the hassle it seems (I'd have to ask next time I offer it). As far as I could remember we've always had the lightweight Real 3D glasses being used here in the cinemas with a few exceptions (IMAX 3D or Dolby 3D) so I don't think earlier glasses drove people off but could be different where you are. From a home experience having tried out some Active 3D glasses I get eye strain which I don't get on Passive, so that could be another reason.

Having said that I agree that 3D is not a big drawcard these days, I've always been more invested in excellent storylines/scripts, music or acting. However, since studios prioritise 2D over 3D there's very few films that maximise the 3D potential or use 3D audio effectively these days. Higher costs for tickets is to be expected since they handle more work getting a 3D conversion done (or shooting natively). I'd definitely go out and see a movie in 3D if it's available, but it's getting extremely difficult to do so given cinemas here are just not screening things in 3D much anymore. As an option it's being sidelined much more, which I don't mind but certainly do wish the Blu-Ray 3D's would be released (Mission Impossible: Fallout for example).
PCummins is offline  
post #75 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 12:49 AM
Member
 
PCummins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
There is no post-conversion craze. Nearly every movie now is post-converted as well as the vast majority of 3D films over the past 10 years are mostly post-converted. There's literally like two directors left (Ang Lee and James Cameron) shooting S3D. Everything else is post-converted. The studio puts up the cost for post conversion in the production budget and it's always in the realm of 10m or more and it does not cost less now than it used to. If anything, like everything else, the costs go up.
Funny you mention that, my friend who loves converted 3D movies actually didn't like Gemini Man because it looked too "flat" as they weren't used to native 3D films. You probably could still add Tsui Hark to the list of directors who potentially would shoot in native 3D, however there's not many left.
PCummins is offline  
post #76 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 12:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
I forgot there was Alita: Battle Angel last year as native so that's two.

What I noticed on Gemini Man was they put a lot of the close up character shots before the screen rather than into it or at the convergence point. It looked different this way, better I don't know. As far as 3D, I thought it looked good, plenty of depth. I've only seen it once though. One thing I've done recently, since there have been fewer and fewer 3D titles releasing, is re-watching everything I have and paying close attention to 3D quality. What I've noticed is that the Ridley Scott films are really 3D lite. They don't take advantage of native 3D enough. Out of screen effects are nowhere to be seen.

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. Very good in 3D. There are lots of scenes with out of screen effects. And depth is pretty good. Only downside is we can't get the native 48fps content or view it properly even if we had it. The first two Resident Evil 3D films, very good in 3D. The final one was converted and not nearly as good. It lacked out of screen effects and seemed pretty flat overall. And usually all of the lower budget films that are native shot, like My Bloody Valentine, Fright Night, Shark Night all fantastic in 3D. Native 3D, if they know what they're doing, usually look very good by default because they're native 3D, but if they are too conservative they end up like Ridley Scott's movies. They're not awful in 3D but they could/should have been better. And I put Avatar in that group too. It's great in 3D. Overall, it just has depth. I know Cameron has said he's going to push the limit with 3D on the next films so they should be better.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #77 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 05:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Now that Avatar has been delayed until Christmas 2021...what is going to happen to Star Wars? Wasn't Star Wars supposed to be Christmas 2021?

Living room HT
Front channels...3 Klipsch RP160Ms, 4 RP150Ms surrounds,Yamaha CXA5100, 2 Dune HD PRO, 2 Yamaha p2500s, 2 Nobsound 50wpc, UnRaid, APC HT power center, Pioneer bluray player, PS3, XBOX ONE,
Xilica xp4080 crossover
NBPk402 is offline  
post #78 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 08:03 PM
Member
 
PCummins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I forgot there was Alita: Battle Angel last year as native so that's two.

What I noticed on Gemini Man was they put a lot of the close up character shots before the screen rather than into it or at the convergence point. It looked different this way, better I don't know. As far as 3D, I thought it looked good, plenty of depth. I've only seen it once though. One thing I've done recently, since there have been fewer and fewer 3D titles releasing, is re-watching everything I have and paying close attention to 3D quality. What I've noticed is that the Ridley Scott films are really 3D lite. They don't take advantage of native 3D enough. Out of screen effects are nowhere to be seen.
In Gemini Man I found the close-up shots jarring, doubly so as it was in 60 fps in the cinema so it's like you're literally there with the actor/actress which is probably what Ang was aiming for. However, I felt it just didn't work well with the film overall and felt out of place. 3D wise it has that natural sort of depth you're used to in real life, so after a while you stop "seeing" it which is what happened with Avatar as well, I think that's what my friend means when it feels "flat". I think directors would need to pick their out of screen effects wisely - too little and it's a gimmick, too much and it's overdoing it - really needs a balance between what's on screen to bring it out more naturally. I do recall "The Secret Life of Pets 2" did a bit of this with some wolves with pointed noses - so their faces/bodies were roughly at the convergence point but the noses were projecting out of the screen, but I'd have to watch again to be sure. (Actually it'd be great to have a 3D -> Depth Map filter that helps analyse this).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. Very good in 3D. There are lots of scenes with out of screen effects. And depth is pretty good. Only downside is we can't get the native 48fps content or view it properly even if we had it. The first two Resident Evil 3D films, very good in 3D. The final one was converted and not nearly as good. It lacked out of screen effects and seemed pretty flat overall. And usually all of the lower budget films that are native shot, like My Bloody Valentine, Fright Night, Shark Night all fantastic in 3D. Native 3D, if they know what they're doing, usually look very good by default because they're native 3D, but if they are too conservative they end up like Ridley Scott's movies. They're not awful in 3D but they could/should have been better. And I put Avatar in that group too. It's great in 3D. Overall, it just has depth. I know Cameron has said he's going to push the limit with 3D on the next films so they should be better.
I'm hoping they re-release The Hobbit in 4K as that would support HFR to see it similar to how to was in the cinemas. Not too concerned about seeing it in HFR 3D however. I'm thinking with cheaper Lidar systems and better filming techniques it should be possible to film movies with enough metadata to build a 3D version more quickly/easily as well as assist with supplementing natively filmed content as well.
PCummins is offline  
post #79 of 81 Old 05-22-2020, 11:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,397
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
UHD Blu ray wouldn't support 48fps for The Hobbit, so it would still just be a 24fps release.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #80 of 81 Old 05-23-2020, 08:44 AM
Senior Member
 
RS3771's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked: 91
The other day, I popped in the German version of "Sword Master" - in literally 5 seconds, I thought "Damn, this 3D is too good" and turned off later cos the disc didn't have English subs! Knew this one may not have subs but still got it to check out the 3D sequences (which I will at some point of time). Indeed, there are at least 50 3D releases that have better effects than Avatar - yet, most people only talk about Avatar as the gold standard for 3D!
RS3771 is offline  
post #81 of 81 Old 05-23-2020, 09:02 AM
Member
 
PCummins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
UHD Blu ray wouldn't support 48fps for The Hobbit, so it would still just be a 24fps release.
Oh I forgot they didn't support 48fps - guess you'd have to either get 24fps, 50fps (which apparently is questionably supported) or 60fps (with some frame interpolation). I'd be interested to see HFR version as an option someday, but not sure how well that would be accepted given the strong disapproval of frame interpolation on TV's for films.
PCummins is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

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