October 28, 2012

8-Bit is Still 8-Bit, Why DSLRs Are No Match for the 12-Bit Blackmagic Cinema Camera

People have done as much as possible to argue against the test that was performed with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera by Marco Solorio and OneRiver Media. That test compared the 5D Mark III and the BMCC, and even though the superior resolution and dynamic range of one of those cameras should have been obvious, many still prefer the Mark III and complained that a better picture profile or some post sharpness would make the differences less noticeable. Well, Marco is back with a new test, and (in my personal opinion) it's hard to argue against these results, as he's pulled out all of the stops to really test the Blackmagic Cinema Camera and show why 8-bit will always be 8-bit, and what it means when you've got the capability for 12-bit images.

Here is the description below the video:

Going a step closer with the Cinema Camera, Marco Solorio of OneRiver Media focuses on how 12-bit RAW compares in relation to 8-bit alternatives, including many camera solutions costing much more. The difference between “perceived dynamic range” and “available dynamic range” is explored in detail. Also covered is day-for-night, detail versus sharpness, and much more.

You could download the original 1080p file as Marco mentions, but I actually watched the compressed online version first, and the differences were still obvious.

As far as dynamic range is concerned, there is only so much you can do with 8-bit to protect the highlights. This was made clear to me in the Zacuto Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012 test. I was able to see that test on the big screen, and when the DSLRs came up, it was clear that there was only so far they could be pushed before they started falling apart. The parts of the image that were massively underexposed to protect the highlights began to look grey and lifeless when they were brought back up. That's what happens with 8-bit. There is only so much information contained within the image, and you can't recreate something that doesn't exist in the first place.

The bit-depth simply refers to the different combinations of ones and zeros that is possible (with color images having three channels of bit-depth). The more bits and values possible, the better the final quality will be.

  • 8-bit   -- 256 different values
  • 10-bit -- 1024 different values
  • 12-bit -- 4096 different values
  • 14-bit -- 16,384 different values
  • 16-bit -- 65,536 different values

Some of you might already be saying that the CinemaDNG RAW files from the Blackmagic Cinema Camera take up a ton of space. That is absolutely true, and short of converting to a compressed RAW format like Cineform, it's something to consider. If you notice, though, there is still a large difference between 8-bit and 10-bit in terms of the values possible, and if you shoot ProRes or DNxHD, you'll be getting a 10-bit file. That is why even in compressed mode, you will still be able to technically pull more detail and color information out of the BMCC as opposed to all DSLRs which only output 8-bit 4:2:2 at their very best.

Internal processing bit-depth is another factor to consider. It's why even though DSLRs are crippled in many ways, especially by the 8-bit color space, that they can still make beautiful images. The detail you are working with is usually starting from a 14-bit source, which is what most of the high-end DSLRs are capable of. After going through this processing, the final image has to be compressed once more to the final output, which for video, is 8-bit. So technically if you could pull RAW video data from these DSLRs, you could be working with a far better file, even if they are pixel-binning or line-skipping. It's one of the reasons people seem to like EPIC/SCARLET footage over RED One MX footage at the same resolution even though they have the same sensor, the RED One is a 12-bit camera internally, while the SCARLET and EPIC cameras are both 16-bit internally.

Now, what about resolution? Adding sharpness does exactly what it's supposed to do: make the edges more defined. I've never been a fan of sharpening, it might make an image pop a little more, but it's not the same as actually having a lot of resolution. You can't make a 720p image look like a 1080p image by sharpening, even on the web. That's why I wanted to watch just the online version first, because it's clear to me that detail and dynamic range do make their way through to compressed video, regardless of what many people might tell you. You will have to make sure that you are getting the least compressed file online as possible, but I consistently see better looking online footage from RED, the Arri Alexa, and the Sony F65 that is clearly superior to DSLR footage.

Of course, cost is a major factor. You might not be able to afford one of these high-end digital cinema cameras (even as a rental), and that's what makes the Blackmagic Cinema Camera so special. For all its quirks, nothing can touch this quality at $3,000. Is this saying that everyone should go out and buy the BMCC? Absolutely not, and for many people, it's going to be the wrong camera for what they're doing, even if it does have higher resolution and dynamic range. For one thing, it can't see in the dark like many DSLRs. It's also going to need a battery of some kind, which is a far simpler addition on a DSLR.

Your DSLR can still give you a wonderful image. There is no doubting that, and if you've got one, don't necessarily get rid of it just because a new camera is coming along that should technically outperform it. Many have stated that they like the footage coming from DSLRs better (I'm not one of those people). I thought this was an important topic to correct some of the misinformation floating around. You should not be ashamed of using a DSLR, even professionally, because in the end, if the client is happy and you're making money, who cares? But there is very real evidence that you can do a lot more with the footage coming from the BMCC, and it's going to show through even in a compressed online video.

Now, as for what your monitor can actually display, that's another story completely, but we'll have to save that for a future post. Let's start a real discussion about this, because it's important not just from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one. If you're limited technically by your camera, there is only so much you can do to compensate, no matter what anyone tells you, and in certain instances, it can make a huge difference.

What do you guys think? For those who wanted to see the Mark III with some sharpening, what do you think about that footage now compared to the BMCC?

Links:

Your Comment

146 Comments

Good informative article, one big problem with the Bm???.

No one can get their hands on one

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Peter Kelly

Definitely, no question that's a problem. Let's hope they work it out sooner rather than later.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Joe one of the most common misunderstandings about digital is the relationship between bit depth and dynamic range (DR) in theory vs. practice. In theory, a 12 bit readout and data format will give you something like 15 stops of DR in a standard sRGB gamma. It would only be 12 stops in a linear gamma (though no one uses such a thing), and it could be stretched for "perceived dynamic range" with a log gamma as BMD uses.

However, BMD only claims 13 stops. Why are they claiming so few stops compared to their bit space? 13 stops can fit into 10 bits in sRGB. They don't need the 12 bits. What happens with the other 2 bits of the 12? They are wasted, either as unused headroom or the signal is swallowed up by the noise floor. You still must expose properly to get your 13 stops, that's only given an optimal exposure (just below clipping the highlights) do you get the 13 stops without clipping.

Thus the term "available dynamic range" is a bit misleading and certainly can't be quoted in bits. It should be quoted in stops, which for the BMCC is the 13 they claim (assuming they are measuring and reporting honestly).

Magic Lantern now has HDR video for the 5D3, which goes beyond Cinestyle gamma in achieving the extended dynamic range effects that Solorio demonstrates on the BMCC. Whether you would rather burden yourself with the rigors of RAW video or HDR video is up to you, you can get similar results at similar cost and hassle which Luke has demonstrated here.

Once people BMD hasn't hand-selected for camera access get their hands on a BMCC, people will be able to show all the ways it falls over, even in post, vs. the 5D3. The BMCC recording format is better, absolutely. Even vs. a 5D3+Ninja once we get clean HDMI. But that's about it in this generation. And that's unfortunately not enough to declare the BMCC "the unquestionably BEST CAMERA in its price range!!!"

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

I wasn't selected to use the camera, and I have. I'm about to go out and shoot some more with it.

Whoever's hoping that the MK3 and any sort of option will come close to what you get out of this camera even in ProRes is dreaming hardcore. The only thing MK3 has going for it is sensor size, if that's your thing.

Sorry.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Kholi

It's interesting that Solorio chose to make the sharpening argument with branches against a colored sky. He had footage of resolution charts from both cameras, of course the BMCC had heavy moire and false color and a green cast on that footage so I understand why he avoided including it.

But by making a resolution argument on a color edge, you are demonstrating the problems from 4:2:0 chroma subsampling. With the 5D3 getting clean HDMI, 4:2:2 chroma will be available for direct to ProRes HQ on the Ninja, which should make that comparison quite a bit closer.

He's not making good faith arguments. Really, this sort of marketing backfires, because the opinion leaders that count in the long run are careful and honest. Solorio's videos are definitely above average for review videos, but they are reeking of bias, and that invalidates him as an authority which he probably could be with a bit more discipline. I guess he just wants to make money doing BMD training and seminars from the look of the ad in the intro.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

Let BMC first get its production line in order and get working cameras in the hands of paying public. We will then see true comparisons rather than marketing videos. The reason why Philip Bloom and Laforet have made a name is because of impartiality.

There are certain good things in the BMC camera. I will buy one for getting certain shots for a project planned in 2014. I am sure the BMC will be available in sufficient numbers with bugs removed by that time. No camera is perfect. It is crazy for people to just praise something as the biggest invention till date.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply

Bit depth only relates to the fidelity of the dynamic range...you can put 15 stops in 8-bit or 4 stops in 32-bit...the difference is in fidelity.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

I would hope it's assumed with a dynamic range spec that it's at 2.2 gamma so the specs mean something in comparison. It's similarly possible, to just use 4 bits out of 12 available...the bit depth is the format, the dynamic range (at a given gamma) implies how much of that format can be used. It's quite a bit easier for a manufacturer to work with a larger bit depth than it is to achieve genuinely improved dynamic range and fidelity.

Again the answer for all of this is an independent testing service like DxO that gives us a set of normalized specs to compare with. There are murmurs about DPR and DxO doing video testing but we will have to see if that is professional standard or just for cellphones etc.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

That is utterly hysterical that you think the bmcc will ever "fall over" in post compared to the 5d mk3... ever. The bmcc definitely has its negatives, but that is certainly not one of them.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
taz

Given e.g. the relative low light capabilities of the two products, plus the availability of ML, it might be unwise to taunt and challenge those not on the koolaid to prove this. They can. If BMD ever manages to ship the camera to the public of course.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

if you're shooting raw with the bmcc, i doubt it. Im not saying the 5dmk3 isnt a great camera, but the bmcc just has alot going for it as far as manipulating in post goes.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
taz

Great post, Joe! I agree with you completely. Exciting times! I'm buying a BMCC decked out or a Scarlet stripped down, depending on what Red says about its prices in a couple of days, but I'm still going to keep my 7D cams. Different tools for different jobs. And I found the sharpening test VERY interesting in One River Media's latest film. I have never contested the BMCC's quality, but I was still shocked by that sharpening test! Thanks, Joe!

October 28, 2012

-1
Reply

Thanks Page, I was equally as shocked by the sharpening test, I had never really seen one done with DSLR footage compared to something higher resolution like was done in the video above.

October 28, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

This man is OUT TO DESTROY DSLRs. I will trust him, though, based upon the epic safari expedition music and that fact that we both rock Sambas.

Good review overall - I'm interested to see if he compares the BMCC footage to the RED Scarlet... or is this comparison already floating around? I'm curious mainly because of the recent article of RED dropping their prices, so the brain at least is a little closer to the competition's costs.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply

Honestly I'd say one big thing to consider is whether you want ProRes primarily with raw as an option, or if you always want raw primarily. Red's implementation of raw is better quality and much easier to work with, but the BMCC's ability to record ProRes internally is killer.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

It's no so much as to "destroy DSLRs" as it is to make people aware of the limitations, draw them away from the market, so canon/nikon/sony will have to respond by improving their cameras to get out business back. This is the magic of the free-market system. And we win in the end. DSLRs may very well have RAW video in the next few generations if we vote with our wallets now, and turn to the companies who are selling technology for what it's worth... and not what is collectively, and arbitrarily, decided upon by the consortium of the big manufacturers. This is why they can get away with selling 8-bit crap machines at exorbitant prices ($15,000)... and since they all play along, they can artificially price tech higher. Don't support the collective market... it's not good for anyone. Especially when we have such an amazing option for $3000.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
bwhitz

Maybe from Nikon, but Canon won't do it until late in the game after Nikon has. Nikon doesn't have a "pro" videocamera division that will lose out to their cheaper D-SLR's.

November 6, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Joe, could you explain the difference we would get shooting HDR on the 5D vs the RAW from BMCC (aside from the greater range of latitude)?

October 28, 2012

0
Reply

Slight correction, Epic and Scarlet do actually store 16-bit information except for the really high compression ratios which drop it to 12-bit.

October 28, 2012

1
Reply
Gabe

It's complicated: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?85797-12-bit-or-16-bit-Scarl...

But yeah, that's a totally separate topic, but RED is playing some games with the numbers.

October 28, 2012

1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

It does seem complicated...but it does sound like from this: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?73953-EPIC-12-and-16-bit-RAW...

...that presumably a 3:1 compression ratio image, if captured uncompressed would need to have a 16-bit depth to match the Redcode image.

I think this is kind of like with resolution where a 1080p image without much detail can be more compressed because there isn't actually a full 1080p amount of detail in the image...but to represent it in an uncompressed image it would still need to be a full 1080p image.

So with the Red One you could only end up with the equivalent of 12-bit in an uncompressed image, but the Epic and Scarlet can potentially end up with the equivalent of 16-bit in an uncompressed image. The reason it's not technically 16-bit is the same reason a compressed 1080p image doesn't technically have a full 1080p amount of detail, but still is manifested as a 1080p image once uncompressed.

This actually makes perfect sense, but I'd never thought of it like that before.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

I think it's similar, I mean a full 1080p image is one that is taken from a downscale of a much higher resolution file, or from a camera that has a sensor for each color.

It's definitely confusing, I'll have to reexamine that at some point in the future and read more into the wavelet compression.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Yeah I think it's kinda of like this...a 16-bit image may need 16 bits for some pixels, maybe 12 for others, maybe 8 for others ect. In the same way a 1080p image of a face with a background out of focus may need full resolution for details on the face, but it needs less detail for the out of focus background. The resulting image looks the same as an uncompressed 1080p image, but technically the detail that was stored in the compressed file varies.

It's too bad that the BMCC can't do some kind of basic ZIP compression like OpenEXR can...most footage would probably shrink to file sizes half that of uncompressed. But it would probably also require more processing and a higher price, so I'm pretty happy with ProRes Log as a compressed option all things considered

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

Yeah, it would be great to see them work with GoPro and incorporate Cineform RAW into the next version of the camera.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Sad fact being GoPro just did BMD one better and shipped a _higher_ resolution 24p camera (2.7K vs. 2.5K) for a tenth the price (no lens needed, though of course unfortunately, no lens changing).

Why wouldn't GoPro put out an interchangeable lens indie filmmaking camera of their own that blows the BMCC out of the water? Things could get interesting quick in the camera world, and the filmmakers might start munching more popcorn glued to the action than their audience does. I sadly am!

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

The GoPro has basically a cell phone sized sensor, so I would hardly call that doing Blackmagic one better. Why would they develop an interchangeable lens camera for a sensor that small? I know you understand sensor and camera technology, and why that wouldn't make any sense. As for developing their own camera with a bigger sensor, who says they could do it cheaper or better? They could do RAW but they have no experience with any of the other technologies that make the Cinema Camera possible.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Some of this is a bit disingenuous, specifically when concerning dynamic range, where it's assumed you can't obtain that "hdr" look with a dslr, when in fact you might not be able to do all of it exclusively in post, but you certainly can get it with a mix of proper lighting and post-production.

That's not to say that the cinema camera doesn't offer a great advantage, particularly in a guerrilla filmmaking type of situation, but the implication that you can only get some types of shots with 12-bit RAW is simple untrue.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel

Well I think you're being a bit disingenuous too...can you make up for the DSLR's 8-bit and low DR without spending a lot of money and time on grip and lighting?

The thing is that the BMCC's specs are pretty standard for big budget movies...you're suggesting that putting more time and money into set-ups than big movies use will make up for the 8-bit and low DR...maybe that's true, but how on earth is an indie set supposed to do something that not even big budget movies do?

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

That's quite the exaggeration. Sure, you usually have to have access to some lighting material if you're working on fiction film making; and creating something that is better than average (be it writing the script, blocking the shots and yes, lighting the set) will often take more time, unfortunately.
But suggesting that, in order to obtain a shot like the window example, you have to spend the same as a big budget production is simply not true. Not the mention the fact that some of the machines people use to edit their dslr footage probably wouldn't be able to realistically handle working on 12-bit RAW, which would affect the overall budget as well.

Again, I'm not shitting on the cinema camera, quite the contrary. I just don't agree with this prevalent mentality that the camera is the only deciding factor on how a shot will look, specially when I'm looking at examples where that's not the case at all.

October 28, 2012

1
Reply
Daniel

You didn't understand my point at all. Look...big budget movies almost exclusively use cameras with at least the specs of the BMCC. If you can't afford the lighting of a big budget movie, and then on top of it you're shooting with an 8-bit camera with low DR, you're shooting yourself in the foot *twice*. With the BMCC, you're at least not crippled by the camera. With the DSLR, you not only can't afford the big movie's lighting, you also can't afford the extra lighting on top of that to fix the DSLR's problems. Here's a simple equation:

Big budget movie = Awesome camera + awesome lighting
Same movie with a DSLR = DSLR + awesome lighting + extra time and money to fix lighting for DSLR
Same movie with BMCC = BMCC + awesome lighting

On a low budget movie you could have:
DSLR + lighting to fix camera problems with a little left over for mood and style
or
BMCC + lighting 100% for mood and style

The editing system is easily the most affordable part of the equation. What you *can't* afford is more expensive grip and lighting than a big budget movie to fix the limitations of the camera.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

The problem with that equation is that you're creating fictitious (or, at least exaggerated) problems when lighting for a dslr. The black magic can certainly simplify the process (something I've repeatedly agreed with), but you're making dslr's sound like a nightmare to properly light to, which is simply not accurate.
Again, and for the last time, this cinema camera sounds great! Will it make things easier for some film makers? Probably, sure!
Does that mean you can't realistically obtain the same results with a dslr? Most definitely not.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel

What I'm saying is it is *not* realistic to get the same results with a DSLR. It may be technically possible, but it is not realistic. If you're shooting with daylight, it is a pretty significant problem trying to bump the fill up for a DSLR when you could just get the image right off the bat with the BMCC. If you're doing a landscape, it's impossible to add fill for the DSLR.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

It would be best to look at DSLRs as reversal film and the BM as negative film.

DSLRs only give you so much flexibility, so it's best to light closer to the way you want it to look.

I do think that the 5D has nicer closeups because of the sensor size.

This is also the first generation BM and it'll only get better.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Thomas

Gabe and Thomas are correct.

Thomas' point about reversal vs negative was exactly what I was thinking. Reversal can look gorgeous...but it takes a lot of work! When magazines shot on film mostly...reversal is finer grained than negative, so they'd use that...but they have to add tons of light to do that. And that isn't cheap, and that's ignoring that they can use strobes b/c they're not lighting for 24fps.

I hate my d-SLR...it's like having to shoot reversal. It looks great when you have control, but especially with low budget stuff, you don't have that control.

In the city, I don't know any low budget film that can set up 12'x12's (and block off the streets and/or sidewalks to do it. Or to use the 18K's on condors to pull it off.

I live in seattle, so at least God gives use city wide overhead diffusion for 2/3rds of the year. But in daylight, it's unmanageable without more latitude. RAW for motion picture footage all the way. (I wish they would do compressed RAW like Red. It's arguably cheaper to use the Reds in the long run b/c of the hard drive space.)

November 6, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

no offence, but complaining about something like that is just annoying. hes comparing these options in post, talking about all the workarounds a dslr would need would just be distracting.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
kevin

Actually, no, I don't agree at all.
My problem with the video is exactly that it implies you can only obtain that look when using the black magic camera (as opposed to a dslr), which is simply not true.
And properly lighting a set is not a workaround, it's part of the work of getting the look you want, regardless of the camera, and this video seems to gloss over it in a way that a lot of people do these days, making the camera sound like the only element involved.
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, and the video was only supposed to highlight the black magic camera's advantage on that very specific area, but the language used was still somewhat misleading.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel

@Daniel, the lighting should be supporting the look of the film, not propping up the camera's flaws. You can't just ask the sun to "please if you could just be a bit less bright". Adding fill against the sun is expensive and takes time and resources away from creating the look for the film.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

You forgot the fact that the BMCC demographic probably has no lighting gear and doesn't even know how to light. Or set up their shots to maximize the dramatic/filmic effect. Spec whores, is all.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Shut up, John. You are hands down the most disgustingly annoying troll on this site, and it's really damn difficult to imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to work with such a blatantly arrogant prick.

I know that's not nice thing to say at all, but you've constantly proven through your narrow-minded and divisive comments that you are completely unwilling to consider anyone's opinion but your own.

Also, where do you get of saying that BMCC owners are less likely to know how to light than DLSR owners such as yourself? How hypocritical can a single statement be?

Think before you speak, John. Please.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Robert

dude u r suck a fuckin troll

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
thadon calico

it seems that i hit a sore/truth spot with that comment

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Please enlighten me, John. Why on earth would this camera appeal to people who don't give a shit about lighting? Beyond that, why would DSLR's be more appealing to legitimate cinematographers than the BMCC, when it seems pretty damn clear that the BMCC produces a better and more workable image?

Let's have a rational discussion about this.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Robert

I'd also like to add that I'm not buying a BMCC. I still use my trusty old 60D to great effect, and I know how to properly light for it (i.e. using a light meter and keeping the image within the 8 stop range of the camera). So your whole "hitting a sore/truth spot" argument falls flat. The only sore spot of mine that you hit is the one that doesn't deal well with arrogant bullshit.

Your move, John Jeffreys.

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Robert

Great info, would love to see a comparison of 10 bit pro res HQ 4:2:2 compared to regular dslr 8bit and uncompressed 4:2:2 FS100 8bit that comes in at 28mbps. In my opinion this is the beauty of the BMC in that it provides PRORES which can seems to be amazing even for non raw coming in at 220 mbps HQ.

Serious question for anyone that knows Is it true that when we see a movie shot on Red or Arri that it is scaled downed 4k and 2k to 1080p for bigscreen, so is it true that red 4k is basically scaled downed 1080p on bigscreen, not saying its a bad thing just trying to understand the science?

October 28, 2012

-1
Reply
Jay slocum

If i remember correct, most movies for normal theaters are 2K. Fincher's Girl with the dragon tattoo was one of the few movies shot on red and presented in the theaters at 4K

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
Ralph

Agree with Gabe / Brendan. I'd love to see a test between these HDR / flattened profile DSLR settings and BMCC. Also the difference between BMCC 10 bit Pro Res and BMCC 12 bit RAW.

Because 10 bit pro res and a 512gb crucial HD could go a LOOOONG way. Not sure about RAW record times though.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
dv

Flat DSLR profile will not make much of a difference, again, 8-bit is still 8-bit, the reason flat profiles are good is for trying to preserve highlight detail, but there's only so far you can go, you can't create new information that wasn't there in the first place.

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Oh god, its THIS article again

October 28, 2012

0
Reply
john jeffreys

It's funny! I just had the same reaction:
"Oh God, it's THIS troll again"

October 29, 2012

0
Reply
Raphael Wood

Ha ha! Nice one.

November 6, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Pages