Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A few weeks back I started working on a mix called Silver Fire. Silver Fire is a mixture of numerous mica based paints, polyurethane, and a white latex paint. This is my second time mixing up the formula - the first time was one of the original mixes and it had a bad blue/red push. This new mix uses Liquitex artist acrylics. The second time around produced different results from the first via the spectrophotometer. According to the color temp calculated by CalMAN, silver fire comes in 100 points away from D65. But as we've learned over time, this only paints part of the picture for some mixes. The more complicated the application, the more data needed to come to a conclusion. One needs only look at the dnp Supernova review to see what an application that does not have a good spectrophotometer reading can do with a projected image. The Supernova is ISF certified and rightly so. But we're talking about Silver fire. During the process I sampled the base components, the color components, Silver Fire lite (less color component added), and Silver Fire.

Here is the color component



Here is the base



Here is Silver Fire lite



Here is Silver Fire



Here is a reference spectro reading from an X-Rite N5 gray



To go along with this I also took calibration readings from my Silver Fire panel. These readings consist of 0-100IRE grayscale images in increments of 10. It also consists of gamut readings which are 75% white, red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow, and 100% white. The software used for both these readings and the spectro readings above is CalMAN Enthusiast. My spectro is an X-Rite i1pro which has been factory calibrated each fall since I've owned it. For the calibration readings, I use a Colormunki Create colorimeter. Supposedly this colorimeter is much better on the lower end than my i1. But I haven't seen enough to be convinced. I do know that it is much faster at getting the readings.

So without further ado, here is the calibration reading from the silver fire panel



For comparison purposes, here is the reference reading directly from the projector (BenQ w5000)



The things that stick out are that it appears to have a red push to it and the CIE chart shows all of the colors pulling towards red. We also went from a spectro reading that was 100 points higher than D65 to an average color point reading of 70 points less.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Empirical data

Empirical data used will be pictures. Camera is an Olympus Evolt 500 mounted on a tripod at 12 feet back. All images are color balanced using an X-Rite ColorChecker Grey Card. The process used to do this is to get a reference shot using the intended light source (projector) and then processing all of the images from within Adobe Bridge. Having a known source of gray in the image determines the color of the rest of the image. White and black levels were adjusted to the silver fire panel. Camera was on a tripod ~12 feet back at roughly head level while sitting.

While I was working on SF, I was also working on several other things - a 2:1 Black Widow, a C&S panel, and a new project of Bill's. The comparison photos will have BW2:1 in some and C&S in some. I also included some with the Vutec Silverstar in them so that you could see how SF compares to a high gain commercial solution.

BW2:1 is on the bottom SF on top.



That first image was the color balance image. And you can already see the, what I like to call, 'noise' being generated by too many reflective particles in a mix. This is the case with both panels but not with the background BW screen.

In this next image you can clearly see that SF is brighter on the bottom of the panel. If you look near the top though, you can see that it starts to darken a bit near the top. I'd like to reiterate at this point that I adjusted the white and black levels for this comparison, as well as the others, for the Silver Fire panel. This is an on axis shot.



Same spot with some ambient lighting



Ok so the SF panel has the brightest area on it. Yet it is not uniform. It also does not have the ambient capabilities of the background BW screen, as the blacks are clearly much better on the background BW screen. So now lets shuffle the panels a bit to either side. To the right with SF still on top and BW2:1 on bottom.



And with ambient light



From the last two photos it shows that SF quickly loses its edge as it moves to the perimeter areas. Whites are equal to the background BW screen with blacks going to BW.

Now to the left





One final thing I did with these two panels was to get some shots at roughly 18 degrees off axis. This is in line with where my wife sits. Previously I had estimated it at 20 degrees but I've since acquired a laser (it's a middle of the road construction laser) that will give me these degrees and is easy enough to line up with my screen. So I measured the seat at 18 degrees. Going from right to left with ambient light.







Pretty much identical to the right side. At this point in the photo shoot I was frustrated with the BW2:1 panel (yes - in my book it's a failure) so I changed it out with the C&S panel. C&S was made using the VUPE base. During these shots I took some with each on the bottom and some with each on the top. I figured C&S would be a good way to gauge SF's whites in the middle portion of the screen.

In this set C&S is on the bottom and SF is on the top. Ambient lighting...







These next shots have SF on the bottom with C&S on top. Some are dark room shots and some have ambient light.













Clearly SF has better blacks in the ambient lighting. But the black level crown would have to got to BW in the background. And the whites are good on SF on axis. Yet they fade quickly as you move off axis. C&S wins the white crown.

Some quick shots of a Vutec Silverstar alongside SF. The Silverstar is on top.







SF isn't even in the same building as the Silverstar when it comes to whites. It does appear that the Silver star hot spots, similar to SF. But brightness and contrast are set for Silver Fire.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Sekonic L758C readings

I have a Sekonic L758C Digital Master light meter which I use for both spot meter readings as well as fL and lux readings. I figured I would take readings of the middle of the SF panel from the middle, left and right sides. What use is this information? Well it will tell us if the panel is in fact brighter in the middle than the sides.

These readings were taken using a 50IRE gray scale image and are measured in foot lamberts.

Top Left - 1.3
Top Middle - 1.7
Top Right - 1.3
Middle Left - 1.4
Middle Middle - 2.3
Middle Right - 1.5
Bottom Left - 1.3
Bottom Middle - 1.6
Bottom Right - 1.4

For comparison purposes, Black Widow yields these results.

Top Left - 1.8
Top Middle - 1.9
Top Right - 1.9
Middle Left - 1.9
Middle Middle - 2.1
Middle Right - 2.0
Bottom Left - 1.8
Bottom Middle - 2.0
Bottom Right - 2.0


Gain readings

Not done yet, but my preliminary on axis reading was .95833. May be a week or two on these.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Conclusion

In a nutshell, Silver Fire hot spots. And it's color reproduction is a bit confusing as the spectro reading shows 100 points higher than D65 and yet the calibration temp shows 70 points lower. I've seen funky things happen with regards to these two measures before - like I said earlier, the Supernova. But these were with layered technology which is way more advanced than Silver Fire could ever dream of. Unless one wanted to examine the aspects of Silver Fire under the microscope, I think it's safe to say that the shifting is due to the massive quantities of mica mixed within a large amount of polyurethane in an attempt to mimic 'pop' yet only results in fizzle. It's like the firework that goes off in the launcher, cool for a second or two, but quickly disappointing. I'm a bit unsure where 'pop' became hot spot with added graininess from the paint itself.

Silver Fire has also been touted as an ambient light screen paint. I tested the darkest mix and Silver Fire comes no where near Black Widow with regard to black levels in ambient lighting. And as for the brightness of Silver Fire, sure it's bright in the hot spot. Beyond that, it's on par with Black Widow with regard to levels.

One final thing to mention is the amount of tedium to this mix. Parts of it are measured in ounces, parts in milliliters requiring different measuring tools. And the milliliter measures are of the thick artist acrylics - of which you use less than a tenth of the bottle for both blue and yellow. It's a pain to mix and when you're done you'll have enough to do several screens as the total ounce count lands at 104 ounces. Which would be enough to do several screens.

This is my second Silver Fire mix. It ended up better than the first. But it's still not a usable product.

I'll end this review in noting that I have been in contact, again, with one of the originators of this mix and have, again, requested a sample directly from them. I am still waiting....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I've been asked recently if I had ever compared Black Widow to Silver Fire. The answer to that would be yes. In all of the pictures above, the background screen is the Black Widow. Some of the conclusive things that can be determined from the screen shots via comparison is that Black Widow has much better blacks and off axis the whites are fairly equal. Why are the whites equal off axis? Look closely at the checkerboard pattern shots. Silver Fire's whites vary from one part of the white box to another part. What is the cause behind this? It's more than likely either the polyurethane or the massive amount of refractive mica used to create something which it cannot be - whiter and blacker at the same time. In the hot spot honey hole of Silver Fire, the whites are better than Black Widow's whites. Yet across the board, the blacks are never darker. :dontknow:

I'm in the process of painting up several new panels, a lot actually. These include polyurethane + paint mixtures, satins, eggshells, semi gloss and several others. You can expect more comparisons to Silver Fire in the future when all of this is complete. I'm thinking it will be around the Olympic break for the NHL when I finally get a chance to accomplish all of this. Keep in mind that I do have a life outside of all of this and my family is in high demand lately with practice's, girl scouts, etc.

Personally, I've kind of come full circle in all of this and lean towards what Smokey Joe taught me. Grayscale readings and spectro readings reveal most all of a product's ills. Pictures are just that... pictures. You see some of the pictures passed off elsewhere as 'conclusive data'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,234 Posts
mech I know the list is already huge, there are a couple more that really need to be added.

One test is SF where the 'colorant' is a color match of the complex color mix that the application calls for. I am saying nobody will be able to tell the difference between the difficult and messy recommended mix, and one that is color matched. Neither will be neutral, I understand that but the point is that a person wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Then the next logical test would be to replace the colorant with an actual neutral gray and then test it against the original SF and see which one performs better.

As far as tests about grays made with RGB vs other pigments or just black and white... We've already done that by testing all these other mixes and we can see that the spectral curve looks messy, the balance is bad, and the temp is off. When it comes to neutral grays, we've tested them to death too and I still maintain that if it meets neutral specifications then it doesn't matter how it was made. RIT agrees with that and everyone in the industry does too so I tend to think they know what they are talking about. Even at that though, we've seen it ourselves that the end result is all that matters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
mech I know the list is already huge, there are a couple more that really need to be added.

One test is SF where the 'colorant' is a color match of the complex color mix that the application calls for. I am saying nobody will be able to tell the difference between the difficult and messy recommended mix, and one that is color matched. Neither will be neutral, I understand that but the point is that a person wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Then the next logical test would be to replace the colorant with an actual neutral gray and then test it against the original SF and see which one performs better.

As far as tests about grays made with RGB vs other pigments or just black and white... We've already done that by testing all these other mixes and we can see that the spectral curve looks messy, the balance is bad, and the temp is off. When it comes to neutral grays, we've tested them to death too and I still maintain that if it meets neutral specifications then it doesn't matter how it was made. RIT agrees with that and everyone in the industry does too so I tend to think they know what they are talking about. Even at that though, we've seen it ourselves that the end result is all that matters.
I always planned on someday getting the "color component" from HD or Lowes in one of their sample cans. I will try and get it in with the rest in a few weeks. I don't think a neutral gray would work. It might, but I'm thinking all the additional mica paints will shift the results.

The problem with SF isn't only it's color component, it's the massive amounts of mica and polyurethane. It hot spots and has a pronounced grainy image. I think that is the 'pop' that folks who have seen nothing but SF refer to. It's what? 75oz of mica and polyurethane to something like 13oz of actual paint.

And not too mention the negatives of having a screen this dark with slightly above 1 gain. But if folks know how to interpret the data, it's all up there.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
I wanted to post to the 'tedium' of mixing the colorant/base/ viscosity.

It all 'depends' on what you view as tedious. I did the SF Lite (I also have the components for BW and plan on shooting a screen with it this weekend).

All the measurements can be taken as Fluid Ounces. That is 29.57 (round to 30) ML's per fluid ounce. for $14 you can get a set of syringes. So there is no real conversion worry. The official SF thread should be more transparent about that though. As a side note: Blame the Imperial/US f'd up measurement system. If we were metric (Liter and Gram) this type of confusion wouldn't exist. Gawd I hate the U.S system of measures.

Is SF more 'work' than some other mixes: Yes. Is it a lot of work or tedious in the grand scheme of what it takes to get a projector and screen going? No.

As to hot spotting, I can only post from my experience: with a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen (will crop to 96" most likely with border) I have no hot spotting that I can tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,234 Posts
I wanted to post to the 'tedium' of mixing the colorant/base/ viscosity.

It all 'depends' on what you view as tedious. I did the SF Lite (I also have the components for BW and plan on shooting a screen with it this weekend).

All the measurements can be taken as Fluid Ounces. That is 29.57 (round to 30) ML's per fluid ounce. for $14 you can get a set of syringes. So there is no real conversion worry. The official SF thread should be more transparent about that though. As a side note: Blame the Imperial/US f'd up measurement system. If we were metric (Liter and Gram) this type of confusion wouldn't exist. Gawd I hate the U.S system of measures.

Is SF more 'work' than some other mixes: Yes. Is it a lot of work or tedious in the grand scheme of what it takes to get a projector and screen going? No.

As to hot spotting, I can only post from my experience: with a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen (will crop to 96" most likely with border) I have no hot spotting that I can tell.
jinjuku I'm glad you like your screen.

I have tried running this up the flagpole many times and each time the reaction was like a sledge hammer to the head back at me. As far as being more work, I keep trying to explain that it simply isn't necessary. It doesn't matter how a neutral gray is made, all that matters is that the end result is a spectrophotometer reads it as D65 neutral.

I have asked for them to please back up their claims that the colorant makes a 'superior gray' and they always throw it back on me. There is no proof anywhere what they are saying is true, but it sounds impressive to someone that doesn't know any better. This will probably be removed once it is realized how bad it makes things sound, but this really sums everything up:
Bill: No one here is under any obligation to "prove" anything to anyone, nor to accept what you call "proof".
Honestly that says more than I could ever say. As far as what I call proof, I adhere to actual color science facts as well as industry standards the video community adheres to, not something I made up.

So based on that, I'll say it again that in this case being more complex and more work isn't worth the effort. Actually these screens employ way too much poly and sheen as well as too much mica... and I personally am not an advocate of mica to begin with because its characteristics and properties are to refract. The last thing anyone wants for a screen is lots of sheen and something that refracts. For people that haven't seen a decent screen and have nothing to compare things to other than when they first projected an image on their plain living room wall... yeah I bet SF does look better. But is it a great screen? No not really. There are better options out there that are actually easier, less expensive, and legitimately D65 neutral- which means you'll get the most accurate color reproduction possible.

I know that's a lot to digest, but here we do back up what we say with actual proof and standards as well as all the same empirical data like screenies you see everywhere else. My goal isn't to push any one thing in particular, it is to educate people on what makes a good screen and what makes a great screen. Hopefully after seeing this isn't magic and it can be quantified and measured as well as real world testing... well my hope is when someone hears a claim or something is hyped and sounds too good to be true that people start asking for just a shred of proof to back things up. Anyone can say whatever they want to make something sound great... try asking them for some proof though and see what happens.

The easiest way to see if your screen is hot spotting, or has the potential to hot spot over another screen is to take a picture of the screen without anything projected on it. Import the image into any paint program and invert the image (makes it look like a film negative). If you see the center of the screen is darker than the rest then it is hot spotting. The negative image really shows hot spotting easily.

In the end though all that matters is if you are happy with your setup. It sounds like you are, so in that case I am glad for you! :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
jinjuku,

Can I have a sample of your left overs? You should have ended up with over 100oz of material. If you can send me enough for a 8X8" panel that would be great. It would be nice to add another SF to the database and see if it holds true to the others from an actual science perspective. :T

I can get a number of readings from a sample that size including gain.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
jinjuku I'm glad you like your screen.
Me too :sn:

I have tried running this up the flagpole many times and each time the reaction was like a sledge hammer to the head back at me. As far as being more work, I keep trying to explain that it simply isn't necessary. It doesn't matter how a neutral gray is made, all that matters is that the end result is a spectrophotometer reads it as D65 neutral.
I don't think I was expressly addressing the point your are making. I am simply pointing out:
That yes it is more work than some other mixes. But taken as a whole: Building the Ark it isn't. That is my only point. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have asked for them to please back up their claims that the colorant makes a 'superior gray' and they always throw it back on me. There is no proof anywhere what they are saying is true, but it sounds impressive to someone that doesn't know any better. This will probably be removed once it is realized how bad it makes things sound, but this really sums everything up:
I know why you are saying this but I would really like to keep this out of my commentary...

Honestly that says more than I could ever say. As far as what I call proof, I adhere to actual color science facts as well as industry standards the video community adheres to, not something I made up.

So based on that, I'll say it again that in this case being more complex and more work isn't worth the effort. Actually these screens employ way too much poly and sheen as well as too much mica... and I personally am not an advocate of mica to begin with because its characteristics and properties are to refract. The last thing anyone wants for a screen is lots of sheen and something that refracts. For people that haven't seen a decent screen and have nothing to compare things to other than when they first projected an image on their plain living room wall... yeah I bet SF does look better. But is it a great screen? No not really. There are better options out there that are actually easier, less expensive, and legitimately D65 neutral- which means you'll get the most accurate color reproduction possible.
I have seen enough Da-lite/Stewart/Focupix to know that the SF Lite I did is doing pretty well (especially considering the price). I don't think there is a discernible amount of sheen to what I did. It's looking very matt.

I know that's a lot to digest, but here we do back up what we say with actual proof and standards as well as all the same empirical data like screenies you see everywhere else. My goal isn't to push any one thing in particular, it is to educate people on what makes a good screen and what makes a great screen. Hopefully after seeing this isn't magic and it can be quantified and measured as well as real world testing... well my hope is when someone hears a claim or something is hyped and sounds too good to be true that people start asking for just a shred of proof to back things up. Anyone can say whatever they want to make something sound great... try asking them for some proof though and see what happens.

The easiest way to see if your screen is hot spotting, or has the potential to hot spot over another screen is to take a picture of the screen without anything projected on it. Import the image into any paint program and invert the image (makes it look like a film negative). If you see the center of the screen is darker than the rest then it is hot spotting. The negative image really shows hot spotting easily.
Which is why I have the AAA colorant on hand and am going to shoot a 2' x 4' sample and see what I get. To defend the 'other' guys they aren't all about the SF mix. They are there helping with other paint applications including BW and the NG stuff (and other variants).

Again my WHOLE and only point: In the bigger picture (pun not inteneded but I will take it anyway) it isn't a lot of work. If SF happens to give me a bit of a technicolor pop that isn't to a standard and I like it? Eh, what is wrong with that?

In the end though all that matters is if you are happy with your setup. It sounds like you are, so in that case I am glad for you! :)
I like it for what it is. Could it change? yes. I will let you know what I think when I get a sample of the BW 4:1 up.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
Doh! I just dropped my camera. POW the LCD display is TOAST.

I believe I have another camera. I can't believe I just did it. I mean this camera made it though a 6 day high in the Grand Canyon and I snuff it out taking pictures of paint on a wall.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
As for the tedium, I have sampled many paint offerings, and Silver Fire is by far the most tedious mix out there. Period. It isn't just the measuring. It's the measuring of paints that aren't exactly measured that easily. Or mixed that easily for that matter. Liquitex acrylics are not meant to be used in this manner. It would have been wiser on their part to use the soft body acrylics for much easier measuring. There'll be a version soon I'm sure!! lol!

I think the best way to put it would be to scale them out, 1 being the easiest and 10 being the hardest. Of all the diy screen mixes out there, nothing is as difficult as Silver Fire. So let's call it a 10. SILVER is fairly close to as difficult but you don't have as much mixing. Yet the application makes it the hardest to apply. It could arguably be a 10 as well. What would be a one? A simple off the shelf neutral gray from your local paint store. Where would Black Widow or C&S fit on this scale? I'd say a 3. There's no measuring of either application and both can be applied with a roller. What would fall in between? I'd say the Scorpion mixes and the Elektra mixes that Don is working on in the developer's forum. With Scorpion scoring around a 6 and Elektra a 5.

Then you have to factor in the cost. Pyro2 did a nice little spreadsheet on the costs of most of the diy applications here. I honestly don't agree with the cost of BW - a quart of paint is $12 here and two bottles of AAA are $16 - but it's close enough. Silver Fire is $80, which doesn't factor in a HVLP sprayer.

So, what does three times the cost (or more) and three times the work (realistically it's much, much, more) get you? Personally I'd expect at a minimum twice the performance. Silver Fire doesn't deliver. All one needs to do is look at the shots above. Black Widow is the background screen. The pj had the black/white levels adjusted to cater to the Silver Fire panel. Look closely at the checkerboard pattern. You can see that the whites are much brighter near the center of the screen area and yet much darker at the outer edges. Take a look at the spotmeter readings. Take a look at the spectrum reading. Take a look at the readings directly from the sample vs the reading from the projector.

You have to take in all of the information and digest it a bit and then write up what it tells you.

So I guess to answer to the tedious remark, yeah Silver Fire is the most tedious diy mix that I have ever mixed. :bigsmile: And to be honest, most all diy applications are tedious when compared to a commercial screen. It took me all of about 20-30 minutes to get my screen up. :T Even a Black Widow screen takes several hours with the paint drying time and all that.

And I too have seen Stewart, Da-Lite, Vutec, Beamax, Tribal, Elite, dnp, Carada, and many more. All that gets me is the background to say that Silver Fire is not equal to the best of any of them. :huh: And I've also tested Winter Mountain, Winter Mist, Gray Screen, Soothing White, Black Widow, Scorpion N8, Scorpion N8.5, Cream & Sugar, Cream & Sugar International, and many that I've forgotten (laminates). Currently I'm working on a major diy paint project involving sheen. So all of that and a dollar gets me what? A dollar I guess... :D

If you check in over at the other forum again, ask Roland (MMan) where he gets his gain numbers from? :heehee: Just kidding! :rofl: And did any of this make sense or did I just ramble a bit too much? :D
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
Is SF more 'work' than some other mixes: Yes. Is it a lot of work or tedious in the grand scheme of what it takes to get a projector and screen going? No.
The whole point of bringing up the SF "colorant" is that there is simply no scientific or artistic reason for it's use. A simple "one color" paint of the same shade will do the same thing (and actually do it better). If it was only a matter of people wasting a few dollars to make the same shade of brownish gray out of 4 different colors of paints then all that would be lost is some time (to measure and mix) and money; but the real problem with the "colorant" mix is that it is hard for most people to mix in the amounts given in the official formula. Simply go through the SF threads at it's home forum and you will see many have had problems in that regard, including MM himself; and all for no justifiable reason.

Near mystical abilities have been attributed to the SF colorant, it is a fascinating (although incorrect in so many ways) read. The developers of SF basically thumb their noses at accepted and documented scientific facts. That is their choice, and their forum supports that belief; we do things differently here.

As to hot spotting, I can only post from my experience: with a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen (will crop to 96" most likely with border) I have no hot spotting that I can tell.
I see that you had to apply some "duster" coats at the end to control hot spotting. I'm glad it seemed to have worked for you. However; if a mix is designed correctly in the first place such paint manipulation isn't necessary. These "duster" coats at the end (which is something new added to the SF spraying instructions as far as I can tell, they weren't in them when I sprayed my SF screen) actually allow much of the paint to dry before it hits the screen, thus not allowing the paint droplets to flow together into one smooth layer. In computer terms we would call this a "kludge" which is defined as "a software or hardware configuration that, while inelegant, inefficient, clumsy, or patched together, succeeds in solving a specific problem or performing a particular task." There are simply better ways to do the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
FYI, I arrived at the $33 for BW by:
1qt paint = $11
8 oz AAA = $15
I also added in $7 shipping which I found from an online vendor.

jinjuku, I'm also interested in your objective opinion of SF vs BW if you do decide to make the BW. More opinions from different people are always welcome.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
As for the tedium, I have sampled many paint offerings, and Silver Fire is by far the most tedious mix out there. Period. It isn't just the measuring. It's the measuring of paints that aren't exactly measured that easily. Or mixed that easily for that matter. Liquitex acrylics are not meant to be used in this manner. It would have been wiser on their part to use the soft body acrylics for much easier measuring. There'll be a version soon I'm sure!! lol!
I guess when it came down to it the mix really didn't seem, in and of itself, a hassle. Comparatively I agree with what you are saying 100%.

This is the DIY bug at work ;)
 
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top