Multi-Sampling on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400

rishij · January 24, 2009

Not a bad idea, since that's the song that typically plays on 'auto repeat' in the back of my head. Every time I fire up one of the multitude of scanners I use :)

Rishi, given the scanning issues you have encountered - based seemingly on so little actual scanning, that you are probably a great candidate to get a DSLR . . . ;-)

</blockquote>

Of course, I'm in line for a 5D Mark II as soon as I can justify the purchase cost given that this isn't my profession. Yet, anyway.

Re: your claim of 'based seemingly on so little actual scanning'... how on earth would you know, short of having a direct-link 24/7 webcam access to my room & the scanning lab I use? With the terabytes of scans that I've collected in the past 2 years from Imacons, Nikons & a Minolta, NONE of which have been for the purposes of my actual portfolio but ONLY directed at methodical scanning tests, come talk to me about 'little actual scanning'. Gather your evidence before you make such bold claims. In this case, since you can't gather any evidence, b/c you don't know me nor do you interact with me, refrain from making such claims or run the risk of sounding like an uninformed <insert expletive of your choice here >.

Sure I'd love to share some 1:1 scans... I'll post back with some full-size images of an Imacon 848 and Minolta 5400 scan of Mauro's resolution target shot on Velvia 50.

Rishi

rishij · January 24, 2009

Do you mean 'before cherry picking the worst '? I don't post the 'best' if I'm trying to solve problems. I post scans showing those problems.

In the <a href="00Ok5u">Creepy Crawly</a> thread, it wasn't about the Imacon scan... why do you keep missing the point? I didn't care about the Imacon scan so I used the 'auto' settings and YES THAT IS WHAT THE AUTO SETTINGS give you. Go complain to Imacon/Hasselblad, not me. Seriously, are you that dense?

In the <a href="00RTYM">LS-9000 vs Imacon</a> thread, I also showed what a great LS-9000 scan is, with edge-to-edge focus that certainly beats some of your LS-5000 scans.

So, what's your point? Does it make you feel bigger to pick on others? What are you 5 years old? Pathetic.

rishij · January 24, 2009

For the rest of you, ignoring Les' attempts to take this thread off track as he usually does, a quick clarification:

The holder moves back and forth using Dimage Scan Utility, but NOT using Vuescan.

This isn't a scanner hardware thing is it? Is there a firmware update, perhaps?

Thanks,

Rishi

roger_smith4 · January 24, 2009

The fundamental question I have is why spend this much effort to get marginal quality improvements with 35mm film? The solutions required to address pepper grain, ICE artifacts, shadow noise, focus problems and flare generally increase scan and scanning prep times, so I couldn't see scanning much more than a few really good slides shot under controlled conditions.

And if I were doing that why bother use 35mm? Medium or large format would make more sense and a DSLR for candid shots or those with less setup and lower keeper rates.

If Vuescan and the Dimage software do multisampling differently it couldn't be a firmware issue as the firmware is the same, right?

rishij · January 24, 2009

Fair enough, Roger, you make a good point.

I guess once I've started a problem, I want to finish it. In this case, I want worry-free scanning with high quality.

Those of you who claim the carrier does NOT move in and out:

1.) Have you carefully observed it by holding a ruler against the scanner or some similar method?

2.) Are you running Windows or Mac?

Thanks,

Rishi

rishij · January 24, 2009

Also, to DSE 5400 users:

In my video, are the motor sounds typical? Also, when I scan at 1x, the motor sound is such that it speeds up, then slows down, then is silent (no carrier movement). Wait a few seconds. Then motor starts again and repeats the cycle, then silence. Etc. It does this many times for scanning 1 frame. When you scan at 1x, is it a continuous movement of the carrier, or is it stop-and-go as it is for me?

Thanks, Rishi

rishij · January 24, 2009

Wait a minute, is the ICE done on a different pass?

rishij · January 25, 2009

'The worst Imacon scan ever' huh? That sounds real objective, Les. How many Imacons have you used? Like I said, take it up with Imacon/Hasselblad and their software devs. My worst Imacon scan ever clearly outresolved all the Nikons AND didn't show any pepper grain.

I was 'showing how superior the Imacon scan was'? No I wasn't , I was POINTING OUT IT DIDN'T HAVE SAID PEPPER GRAIN ARTIFACTS (I'm hoping BOLD CAPITALS might, just might, penetrate that dense skull of yours) & that it resolved more detail. Both of which are true, to this day . So you can keep telling me I made some claim which I didn't, but you could also just as well try and convince me to believe in Santa Claus.

Oh really? You corrected me by saying those dots weren't b/c of the Coolscan? Yes they were . They're due to the manner in which harsh collimated light is refracted by air bubbles. Draw some light diagrams. Study some physics. Use your intelligence (do you have any?) and you might, just might, stop sounding like an idiot harping on irrelevant detail.

I'm not crying about being corrected, I'm crying about you being an imbecile. My data & conclusions aren't the problem; the problem is your idiocy which detracts from threads. WTF have you contributed here?!

peterblaise · January 25, 2009

.

Ahh, we love to comment on each other in speculation rather than just share our own photographic experiences to help others see over our shoulders.

Ooops, I just did that, too!

=8^o

Ah well, at least I shared what resources I have -- examples of my lay-flat/uncurl regime, and the factory service manual for those who want tot tinker. I'll try to build a web presence showing how I make my Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II work for me. Until then, there's scant little more I can add ...

... except, to anyone who thinks another person's examples are inaccurate: show us your own, and explain your complete and total process in getting there. If not here, then on your own web site, and give us a link. We don't need an endless rondele of critiques of each other's offering -- we can do that for ourselves to see if anyone's offering informs our own situation. What we need are better examples! Anybody?

Thanks!

.

rishij · January 25, 2009

Thanks Peter. Exactly my thoughts too, which I initially tried to explain to this dimwit umpteen threads ago. Yet he keeps rearing his ugly head. What's a dude to do?

Thanks for your help Peter. Have you seen the video I posted? It clearly shows the carrier going in and out at 4x multi-sampling with ICE & GD on.

Tonight, I took a 12 minute video of the film carrier scanning at 8x with ICE & GD on (i.e. same settings exactly as previous video, except 4x is upped to 8x).

Now, as I speed up/scroll through the video, there's no back and forth movement of the carrier ! It only moves forward, really slowly, then stops for a bit, then starts again, etc. etc. My preliminary judgement by eye at 16x also indicates the same behavior at 16x.

I'll post that video sped up.

Notably, at 1x, the carrier speeds up and goes in, then slows down, then retracts (goes back out of the scanner) for a very little bit, then waits, then speeds up and goes in... repeat repeat. But it doesn't go back out as far as it does with 4x.

I doubt anyone's peeped at this like I am now, making this videos and such. Which is probably why this is suddenly news (to me anyway)... there's probably a perfect explanation for all this.

Watch for my post with the 8x video :)

Rishi

roger_smith4 · January 25, 2009

Calm down, children.

Yes, ICE should be done on a different pass- at least with my fluorescent lamp scanner it does one pass for RGB and a second pass for IR. My scanner only stops to wait when the computer can't keep up with the data transfer (so long as I don't edit in Photoshop at the same time and use up all the ram it goes smoothly in one pass).

rishij · January 25, 2009

Oh, you had English as a 2nd language, Les? That explains a lot. Ok, you are forgiven. Clearly you couldn't have been talking about me... b/c I'm celebrating my 29th year of being born & brought up in this country, today in fact! But, while we're at it, why don't we add racism to your list or outstanding attributes ?!

It's also unlikely that two Ivy league schools let slip in someone who can't communicate his thoughts clearly in writing. But, of course, I shouldn't let that get to my head.

Oops, I think it's too late for that.

Funny how people start running away once you rear your ugly head into these discussions. Ah, doesn't it feel so good to be so loved?

-Rishi

P.S. Any talk of 'getting a digital camera' befuddles the original intention of dealing with archives of film, so your point, Les, is irrelevant. But what more to expect from you than obfuscation & detraction from any useful discussion? At least when Roger mentioned it, he followed it up with information relevant to the OP .

rishij · January 25, 2009

Yeah, good one Les -- looks like they have a scanning methodology about as clueless as yours: 'manual color correction you won't find elsewhere!'

Ever heard of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reproduction-Colour-Imaging-Science-Technology/dp/0470024259/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232918754&sr=8-1">color theory</a> , Les? There's a way to extract exactly what's on the film with, *gasp*, no manual color correction done by incompetent humans at all!

Thanks for proving my point -- how useless your suggestions are. Yes after all my issues with pepper grain, lemme send it off to a place that'll scan on a LS-5000. After my gripes about the low resolution of a LS-9000 even compared to my Minolta I got off eBay, yes lemme send it off to a place that'll scan on a LS-9000.

Oh yeah, & after having lost 2 rolls in the mail in the past, lemme send off my entire precious collection to INDIA.

In fact, your pathetic suggestions actually help to bolster my noble goal -- to finally find some way to scan 35mm film to perfection within the confines of your own home.

Here's a comparison of your beloved Nikon Coolscan 5000 up against the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. Both scans had AN glass flattening the film so that there was little no variation in focus across the frame. Multiple points were sampled for manual focus; since there was hardly an variation in the focus readings, the average was taken.

First, the full frame scan, so you get a sense of perspective:

Now, here's a 100% crop of the Nikon image, so you can see the grain & convince yourself (make sure you view at 100%) everything's in focus (remember, this is Velvia 50, so hardly any grain to begin with)... thanks to Mauro Franic for the incredibly well set up test & shot:

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/35mm_Scanners/LS5000_Scanhancer+ANGlass_100PercentCrop.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a>

Now, here's a side-by-side comparison (no sharpening applied) of the Minolta vs. the Nikon... the Nikon was scaled up to 5400dpi using Bilinear sampling as this resulted in the best preservation of the lines in the resolution test chart (both Near Neighbor and Bicubic methods somewhat softened the lines... Bilinear maintained them pretty darn close to what I saw at 4000dpi). Both scans were then magnified to 300% for comparison:

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/35mm_Scanners/Minolta%20DSE5400%20vs%20LS-5000.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a>

Grain Dissolver is applied to the Minolta scan, and a Scanhancer to the Nikon LS-5000, which is why you don't see grain grittyness.

Now, before you jump down my throat for using a Scanhancer, realize that the Scanhancer seems to, subjectively, diffuse light about as effectively as the LS-9000's diffusing rod. LS-9000 scanners (without a Scanhancer, of course), in fact, yielded slightly less resolved lines than the LS-5000. Which is why I used the LS-5000 scan for this comparison.

But if you think there is something wrong/out of focus after viewing the 100% crop of the LS-5000 scan, then please do let me know.

Now let's get to some empirical numbers for resolution. Using Photoshop's measurement tools, that chart height can fit 8.63 times within the full frame (height-wise). Multiply that by 100, and you get the factor you need to multiply the relevant chart numbers (the highest number at which lines can still be resolved) by to get the final lines per picture height (LPPH).

<ul>

<li>Under a light microscope: I can distinguish down to ~4.75. Multiply that by 863, and you get 4100 LPPH. That's for the 24mm side of the film. Assuming horizontal resolution = vertical resolution (for all practical purposes, it does under the microscope), we can multiply 4100 by 36/24 to get the lines per picture width (LPPW); namely, 6150. 4100 x 6150 = 25.2 megapixels. Which matches very closely to Fuji's own rating of the film.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Nikon LS-5000: I can distinguish down to 3 along the vertical axis (axis of the CCD), and 3.5 (that's me being generous) along the horizontal axis (axis of the stepping motor -- it's well known that this axis gives you more resolution b/c of the fine steps of the motor). The calculation goes as follows: [3 x 863] x [3.5 x 863 x 36/24] = 2589 x 4531 = 11.73 megapixels</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400: I can distinguish down to 4 along both axes (and that's me not being very generous). The calculation is as follows: [4 x 863] x [4 x 863 x 36/24] = 3452 x 5178 = 17.87 megapixels</li>

</ul>

You wanted some empirical data, there you have it. Feel free to comment, criticize and whatnot else.

-Rishi

rishij · January 25, 2009

Just to be sure you understand - as clearly you have some misplaced feelings, I simply have been correcting your technical misunderstandings and nothing about you personally.

</blockquote>

If that were the case, you wouldn't still be harping on that Imacon scan being the worst Imacon scan ever , because that is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the purpose of that entire thread. In fact, this isn't the only place where you bring up the bad Imacon scan. You pretty much bring it up EVERY TIME you intrude on my threads.

And EVERY TIME , guess what? It's STILL absolutely irrelevant! Get it? Or do I need to translate the term 'irrelevant' into a different language?

Truly you should be ashamed. Like I was ashamed when I realized that I had a focus error using Vuescan with the LS-9000 scans previously. Pretty much the only valid thing you've ever called me out on. But, dangit, at least I was man enough to admit my mistake & my shame!

-Rishi

erik scanhancer · January 25, 2009

Rishi, do not forget that this is Photo.net, which is usually not used for very scientific discussion. I would like to encourage you to pursue your quest, but please understand that your methodical search will look like "newly inventing the wheel" to some. It is beyond their comprehension what you are actually trying to achieve. Oh, and a Happy Birthday to you!

OK, I'll try to stay purely on topic now. The moving film in the 5400 with Dimage Scan 1.1.6 is very interesting. Maybe you should try the version from the European support site, or otherwise version 1.1.5, which will run on a Mac too. Start here: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=34&men=3 . The Photoshop plugin of Dimage Scan hasn't worked for me since after PS7.0, so you can forget about that one. If you can't find a version 1.1.5. of Dimage Scan I have it for you, as well as the 1.1.6. version I am currently using, of course. I cannot check what other Elite 5400 scanners do with multi-sampling because I do not have one. Looking forward to hear from others who can confirm. Although it is trivial for me to know, I still would like to know what's the real story here.

If you want to check the version number of Dimage Scan you need to move the mouse over the blank area right under the title on the opening page. The information will then light up, as my screengrab showed.

rishij · January 26, 2009

Yeah, Erik, I guess this is where I start ignoring forum trolls, i.e. Les.

So, where exactly do I find a scientific forum? I guess I figured this was pretty scientific given the presence of you, Roger, Mendel, Vijay, Bernie (haha, have you checked out the film theory posts of late?)... let me know if there's somewhere else I should go :)

I tried 1.1.5 from the European site. Same behavior. I'm tryina import the 8x video in Final Cut Pro to speed it up so you can see that it, in fact, only proceeds inward (without ever coming out).

Fascinating that 2x & 4x should behave so differently from 8x and 16x.

I'll try and post the video and screengrap a.s.a.p.

Thanks Erik,

Rishi

rishij · January 26, 2009

Just because I have uneventfully scanned over 8,500 frames of various films to date with this scanner does not make me "love " it. It simply makes me more knowledgeable about it and makes me appreciate it more then my previous attempts.

</blockquote>

More knowledgeable about it? You taken it apart? Sealed the gaping holes/leaks in the optical housing? Cleaned the mirror? Modified the optics by placing a diffuser at different depths within the optical path? Tried glass to flatten the film? Profiled with basICColor vs. LPROF? Profiled with IT8 vs HCT targets? Dealt with the 'blacker than black' problem with color profiling?

More knowledgeable ? Don't make me laugh, man. You're a common plebian who's not discerning enough to realize the inherent problems of scanning 35mm film, hence your 'uneventful scans'.

Oh and don't forget the other correction I made in your post - <a rel="nofollow" href="00Ok5u">Creepy Crawly Bugs All Over LS-5000/LS-4000 Scans! </a> was due to your use of Vuescan and not due to the Coolscan but who's counting . . . ;-)

</blockquote>

No, actually, like I said, it's more due to the harsh collimated LED light source of the Coolscans... with a more diffuse light source, Vuescan has no problem. But who's countin', right? Who wants to know the real reason anyway? Down with Science. Down with Reason. Palin '08!

Erik, though in this case you're right that this clearly isn't a place for very scientifically-minded people (as evidenced by the presence of Les), sometimes some good minds do show up. Yourself included. As well as Roger, Mendel, Vijay, Bernie (you seen the film theory debates? good stuff...), Jeff Schewe, Andrew Rodney...

mauro_franic · January 26, 2009

Rishi, I haven't been very active lately. Glad to see you are enjoying your new scanner. The results seem off the chart good - at least compared to the A900 and the 5DII.

Did you run the TMX film through it? Can't wait until you post a comparison of all the films (B&W, Color Neg and Slide) and all scanners you have been testing.

I keep on dreaming. If I could only get an 8000dpi Coolscan9000-like scanner for my medium format....

rishij · January 26, 2009

NikonScan ICE more effectively subtracts the pepper grain, but also eats away at edges as my example shows. Vuescan's IR subtracts the pepper grain too much , leaving white specks. Vuescan IR cleaning doesn't have to subtract any pepper grain from LS-9000 scans b/c the light source is diffuse enough that on average air bubbles that would otherwise refract collimated light away from the corresponding spot on the CCD no longer do so b/c the light rays are traveling in so many different directions.

So I understand the problem from the ground up. What do you understand, Les? That NikonScan doesn't create the problem but Vuescan does? So just use NikonScan? My, how simplistic . Childish almost. You also no longer have a point (did you ever?), & are just rambling.

only now do you actually have a scan that is sharp and has actual resolution to show the difference - oh and it's someone elses . . . Well I would definitely be upset too . . .

</blockquote>

There you go again, pretending like you know me. You clearly show, time and again, how illogical and un-founded your claims are, and I'm quite enjoying how you actually discredit yourself. Although I really appreciate Mauro's well-setup test efforts & his generosity in sharing (and his logic, and his cordiality, and all those other things that you don't have), here's a 100% crop of one of the first scans I ever made of one of my own shots, years ago (before I could afford L-series lenses or a Gitzo tripod so don't even think about commenting on the slightly unsharp mountain edge):

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/ScanningWoes/GrainyScan.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a>

Clearly it's in-focus (look at the grain in the image on the left), sharp, 4000dpi, yada yada. Just about as grainy & crappy as your Nikon scans, Les! It doesn't take any talent to create an 'uneventful scan'. It *does*, however, take prudence & intelligence to do better, which you clearly don't care to do.

And by 'better' I mean:

<ul>

<li>Maintain focus edge-to-edge, indicated by resolved grain (well, grain aliasing anyway) across the frame</li>

<li>Get rid of grain while maintaining real image data (using a diffuser)... the level of grain on that image on the left makes me cringe... though the image on the right (which was run through NeatImage) helps, such images are less amenable to sharpening, since edges where grain was removed become amplified. Hence why it is important to not have so much grain in the initial scan, using a hardware device (diffuser) </li>

<li>Accurately subtract negative film's orange mask to get as close to the real color data on the negative as possible</li>

</ul>

You critically thought about any of these things, Les? Or is that just expecting too much? Erik did point out that this probably isn't the best place for scientific discussions, and, unfortunately, you're proving him right.

Oh and sorry I don't have 8,500 scans worth of experience on the Nikon... guess I'm just not that old. And boy would I be ashamed if, after 8500 scans, I hadn't even considered half the things this little punk named Rishi has considered having scanned less than 1% of that. In fact, I might even be upset enough to just pick on said little punk entirely illogically with no sound basis at all!

Wait a minute... that sounds familiar .

-Rishi

rishij · January 26, 2009

Roger,

I guess the ICE is done in the same pass with the KM 5400 as by 8x multi-sampling video shows the carrier only moving in one direction throughout the 12:00 duration of the entire scan.

Furthermore, pictorial evidence of the optical housing in the Minolta scanners indicate that the IR light is mixed with the fluorescent light. That is, the IR signal is not recorded separately. Duh, since you don't flash the fluorescent tube during the scan.

In fact, looking at the optical housing of a larger format Minolta scanner(thanks Erik), it seems that there's a light gather-er/diffuser in front of the IR LED(s) -- Erik correct me if I'm wrong -- right above this is where the cold cathode fluorescent tube sits. In other words the gather-er/diffuser effectively must mix the fluorescent + IR light. Further along the light path is what looks to me to serve as a light collimator (I gathered this from drawing some light ray diagrams of what happens to light entering this semi-circular plastic piece after leaving the 'diffuser', or, more accurate, the plastic piece that makes light rays diverge). So what exists the optical housing must be a mix of IR + fluorescent light.

I think.

-Rishi

rishij · January 26, 2009

Mauro, good to hear from you!

Yeah, weren't you reading about ~3.5 after intense sharpening of the Nikon scans? Now I can see down to a little past 4.0 with the KM 5400 scan with no sharpening at all! With the Imacon, I can pretty much see everything -- down to ~4.75.

With the TMX & the Imacon, I can see past 5. Maybe even 5.5. Meaning ~34 megapixels for the entire frame. Ridiculous.

Yes I will put up a full comparison, including LS-4000/LS-5000/LS-9000/KM-5400/Imacon plus more permutations with Scanhancer and GD and whatnot. Hopefully sooner rather than later :) I really need to get a blog site up and running.

Thanks again Mauro!

Cheers, Rishi

rishij · January 26, 2009

Les you really need to learn how to state a point better and/or write better English. Your last post is nonsense & hardly makes any sense to me. Perhaps pick up a book on academic writing.

But from the little bit of it I could understand, amongst the typos & incomplete sentences, I'll tell you the following two bits of information:

<ol>

<li>That little thumbnail is all I care to share with you . If you actually knew how to logically & succinctly frame arguments & make a point, you'd understand that that little thumbnail was all I needed to prove to you that one of my first scans ever looks just as good & sharp as one of your 8,500 scans, Mr.-Experienced-Scanner-Operator. And by 'just as good' as yours I mean 'crappy & not up to my current, evolved standards', just so you know. </li>

<li>'Terabytes' was what they call 'hyperbole'. I've scanned much less than that. </li>

</ol>

... And yet I can make scans that are perfect in one regard or another. Don't ask me to share them with you b/c you haven't earned that right from me, nor do I need the approval of someone whom I consider significantly less knowledgeable than I at scanning. This is just fun for me at this point. Refuting you.

Does that frustrate you, Les? That with so much less experience than yourself, I'm able to prudently & intelligently identify and tackle problems that you can't even see, while you play around with useless things like DEE & GEM and random application of Analog Gain (which must only be carefully used in a very controlled manner in any properly color-managed workflow)? Hey did you even know that positive analog gain application actually underexposes the scan of the negative, which is heresy in any digital imaging application? Oh and how's the scanning of 110 film working out for ya without any masks to mask all the open areas light is penetrating through? Must result in spectacular banding! And who doesn't love banding?

Keep 'em coming, Les. Raise an actual valid point for once. C'mon, stop disappointing me. Because this is just too easy...

Rishi

rishij · January 26, 2009

As for your thumbnail crop - clearly it represents that you don't want a whole image evaluated since you're already preemptively making excuses for it by saying "before I could afford L-series lenses or a Gitzo tripod ". So all your prior - archive film wasn't made optimally?

</blockquote>

I make 'excuses' for it b/c you have a knack for harping on absolutely irrelevant details. Red herrings , perhaps, because you don't actually have a real thesis or argument? Like 'how bad the Imacon scan ' was, apparently, even though it entirely proved my point by having no (well, subdued to be more accurate) pepper grain + higher resolution than the Nikon scans.

Yeah sure all my prior - archive film wasn't necessarily made optimally... some of 'em were even shot handheld. Some of 'em were underexposed. Some of 'em were even overexposed. Imagine that! And some of 'em were just crap compositions! Whoa, what does that make me? A photographer , I would think.

What the hell is your point? You gettin' senile man? You have no valid points at all anymore!

-Rishi

lex_harris · January 26, 2009

Well as no-one else seems to be saying anything I may as well...

Guys, personal attacks are not befitting a learned forum or any other forum. Opinions can always be framed in a dignified and non-confrontational way. Personal wars can be waged off-line.

Where are the moderators when you need them?

rishij · January 27, 2009

Lex, Erik, you're right. I will just not respond or react to Les Sarile any more. It was silly of me to think that I could logically prove or disprove anything to him, or come to some sort of understanding, given that I couldn't even get him to speak diplomatically to me in the <a href="00Ok5u">first thread</a> he & I ever 'spoke' in.

Thanks for stepping in.

Respectfully, Rishi

Sign In

Multi-Sampling on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in