[40K] Games Day LA

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Anyone from here going? I was thingking about but had not yet dedcided.
I do kida like that marine...

-Joe
34 answers Last reply
More about games
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Desert Lurker wrote:
    > Anyone from here going? I was thingking about but had not yet
    dedcided.
    > I do kida like that marine...
    >
    > -Joe

    Unless they're running a supreme discount on bits, nah. I hate the fig,
    too FWIW, so there's very little reason for me to shell out the forty
    bucks and make the drive.

    GW seems to be plugging the LA Games Day all over the place, even staff
    answering the phoner are required to ask customers if they want to hear
    about it. Weird...

    --Chris
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Chris Valera wrote:
    > Desert Lurker wrote:
    >
    >>Anyone from here going?

    The thought had crossed my mind, as it would be local. But I'll be
    roughly halfway around the world, so it doesn't matter.

    >> I was thingking about but had not yet dedcided.

    Are you greater LA? Part of a local group?

    >>I do kida like that marine...

    Ew.

    > Unless they're running a supreme discount on bits, nah. I hate the fig,
    > too FWIW, so there's very little reason for me to shell out the forty
    > bucks and make the drive.

    And out of curiousity, where are you?

    > GW seems to be plugging the LA Games Day all over the place, even
    > staff answering the phoner are required to ask customers if they
    > want to hear about it. Weird...

    GW is pushing it to see if they can get enough turnout to justify the
    event.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:08:08 -0800, Desert Lurker
    <ironman150.spam@ridgenet.net> wrote:

    >Anyone from here going? I was thingking about but had not yet dedcided.
    >I do kida like that marine...

    I'll be heading to GD Atlanta. Going to take a camera and 2-3
    notebooks, record all the better info. (Not that I think I could fill
    2-3 notebooks, but most of my notebooks are already half filled with
    army lists, notes, and all kinds of stuff.) Going to hop in on the
    WFB and 40K seminars, forget the LOTR stuff.

    I plan on getting into some of the stuff like the conversion
    "contest", not really because I care about the "Conversion Demon" but
    mostly because I can build a nice converted Space Marine Commander and
    take it home with me, helping to recoup the cost of the trip.

    I've also got over $500 in grant money left over for this semester,
    and that'll be heading to the store.
    -Erik
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang wrote:
    > Chris Valera wrote:
    > > Desert Lurker wrote:
    > >
    > >>Anyone from here going?
    >
    > The thought had crossed my mind, as it would be local. But I'll be
    > roughly halfway around the world, so it doesn't matter.
    >
    > >> I was thingking about but had not yet dedcided.
    >
    > Are you greater LA? Part of a local group?
    >
    > >>I do kida like that marine...
    >
    > Ew.

    I know, it's so sad... avert your eyes!

    >
    > > Unless they're running a supreme discount on bits, nah. I hate the
    fig,
    > > too FWIW, so there's very little reason for me to shell out the
    forty
    > > bucks and make the drive.
    >
    > And out of curiousity, where are you?

    SoCal, near LAX.

    > > GW seems to be plugging the LA Games Day all over the place, even
    > > staff answering the phoner are required to ask customers if they
    > > want to hear about it. Weird...
    >
    > GW is pushing it to see if they can get enough turnout to justify the

    > event.

    Sadly, you're right.

    --Chris
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Yah, do a report, and bringa didgicam. Get some shots of the
    alternating release schedules. My guess is tehy've got nothing on tap.
    You can ebay the LE fig to recoup costs, but yah, bringing home a
    custom model is good too. I'd just build a tank and cramm the interior
    with bits.

    Is it *just* a SM Commander, or general bits?

    --Chris
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang wrote:

    > Are you greater LA? Part of a local group?
    >
    Alas I have no group, not much of a store and little space to play.

    > And out of curiousity, where are you?
    >
    I am in Ridgecrest, CA 80 miles due east of Bakersfield. so the Ont.
    Conv. Ctr. is a 'mere' 2+ horus away. here it is on a map.
    http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=3&mapdata=OE4WNszgW9y223MpjLFz7AtZ7yfVAeco0aRJCh%2bMSzStoIuyAgIa9z3O%2b6YMRWgm5pCeqQGL%2fCbevKZ1%2bCie3RTmrv447xXE%2bDdoxybj0gbW%2f5AHak3sLTWq0L%2bQCjgW9O1J8Cz2hqq6umifg28iE1pjOcNXfZuMGns%2fQIuj4acgttPqzU86avCGr6Qde83RbCJMHCIh4MAroHx0%2fQ%2fiyFZeB5djgrvaQHBODoQ%2fE3GJBrQojNy4cmqzv3sXqJDdicoSvB0n9pcOKH6FF8gbjduPwMW1bBhDOk%2bgMKE9%2fw0VyV0NQ7q1x0ZSDLsxfEKTdrqcsAnsT6Q2IiTP2IYyGutTLzov%2by4YVyUgg%2fClC7Y9kLIW%2fpN54ynzqP3wsLBhPtcQH0k7mn9tKvTknQrm%2bLMRuSgYUEn5Y54cEMoabkYhlSeRW81cvNaNt8Ag5HM6

    so as you can see anything is 2+ hours away. It's about 3 to Dinseyland
    and about 2 1/2 to a Dodger game or Magic Mountain.

    -Joe
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On 17 Mar 2005 10:45:30 -0800, "Chris Valera"
    <grimdarkness@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Yah, do a report, and bringa didgicam. Get some shots of the
    >alternating release schedules. My guess is tehy've got nothing on tap.
    >You can ebay the LE fig to recoup costs, but yah, bringing home a
    >custom model is good too. I'd just build a tank and cramm the interior
    >with bits.
    >
    >Is it *just* a SM Commander, or general bits?

    The conversion contest? It's a bunch of bits to build a SM Commander
    or Chaos Lord.

    And I'll do better than a digicam, though it'll take a bit longer to
    get the pics back. I'm brining my 35mm camera, it's a lot better than
    any digicam on the market right now.
    -Erik
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when Erik Setzer entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > On 17 Mar 2005 10:45:30 -0800, "Chris Valera"
    > <grimdarkness@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Yah, do a report, and bringa didgicam. Get some shots of the
    > >alternating release schedules. My guess is tehy've got nothing on tap.
    > >You can ebay the LE fig to recoup costs, but yah, bringing home a
    > >custom model is good too. I'd just build a tank and cramm the interior
    > >with bits.
    > >
    > >Is it *just* a SM Commander, or general bits?
    >
    > The conversion contest? It's a bunch of bits to build a SM Commander
    > or Chaos Lord.
    >
    > And I'll do better than a digicam, though it'll take a bit longer to
    > get the pics back. I'm brining my 35mm camera, it's a lot better than
    > any digicam on the market right now.
    > -Erik
    >
    That just isn't true Erik. ALL 35mm camera's regardless of the manufacturer
    have to save the image to a little piece of negative film 35mm in size
    (roughly 1-3/8" or about the size of a Terminator Marine). You have to worry
    about lighting, shadows, glare, and an assortment of other problems, not to
    mention the developer problems, if you happen to get your film developed
    toward the end of the chemical solutions useful life. Assuming that you
    optimize all of those things (which can easily be corrected with a digital
    image) there is only so much detail that you can pack into such a small size
    even if you use a really good macro lens. On the other hand using a good to
    medium quality digicam with a macro lens you can get the equivalent of an
    8X10 positive image. Which means instead of recording the details in a
    smaller then life size in a inverted color scheme you are recording them in
    a larger then life size in true colors. The closest you can come to that
    kind of quality with a film type camera, would be a 2-1/4" format SLR with a
    macro lens, and even then you will be hard put to reap the same quality that
    you would get from an equivalent digicam. To top all of that off, if you
    aren't happy with the picture you get digitally, you can simple erase it and
    shoot it again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!
    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:30:55 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com>
    wrote:

    >It was a cold day in September when Erik Setzer entered the world pub known
    >as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
    >
    >> On 17 Mar 2005 10:45:30 -0800, "Chris Valera"
    >> <grimdarkness@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Yah, do a report, and bringa didgicam. Get some shots of the
    >> >alternating release schedules. My guess is tehy've got nothing on tap.
    >> >You can ebay the LE fig to recoup costs, but yah, bringing home a
    >> >custom model is good too. I'd just build a tank and cramm the interior
    >> >with bits.
    >> >
    >> >Is it *just* a SM Commander, or general bits?
    >>
    >> The conversion contest? It's a bunch of bits to build a SM Commander
    >> or Chaos Lord.
    >>
    >> And I'll do better than a digicam, though it'll take a bit longer to
    >> get the pics back. I'm brining my 35mm camera, it's a lot better than
    >> any digicam on the market right now.
    >> -Erik
    >>
    >That just isn't true Erik. ALL 35mm camera's regardless of the manufacturer
    >have to save the image to a little piece of negative film 35mm in size
    >(roughly 1-3/8" or about the size of a Terminator Marine). You have to worry
    >about lighting, shadows, glare, and an assortment of other problems, not to
    >mention the developer problems, if you happen to get your film developed
    >toward the end of the chemical solutions useful life. Assuming that you
    >optimize all of those things (which can easily be corrected with a digital
    >image) there is only so much detail that you can pack into such a small size
    >even if you use a really good macro lens. On the other hand using a good to
    >medium quality digicam with a macro lens you can get the equivalent of an
    >8X10 positive image. Which means instead of recording the details in a
    >smaller then life size in a inverted color scheme you are recording them in
    >a larger then life size in true colors. The closest you can come to that
    >kind of quality with a film type camera, would be a 2-1/4" format SLR with a
    >macro lens, and even then you will be hard put to reap the same quality that
    >you would get from an equivalent digicam. To top all of that off, if you
    >aren't happy with the picture you get digitally, you can simple erase it and
    >shoot it again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!

    Granted, I could have said that a lot better. Sure, there are digital
    cameras that can do a better job than my 35mm can. But as they are
    all priced well out of my price range, I consider the 35mm to be a far
    better option. Anything below 8mp is worthless as far as I'm
    concerned, and you really have to reach the 10-12mp range to make sure
    you're getting really good quality. 14-16mp is the sweet spot, but as
    yet is unavailable.

    Having taken thousands of pictures with this camera and knowing how to
    use lighting and all the options on it, I'm quite comfortable with
    saying it's a much better option than any 35mm camera with a
    reasonable price on the market right now.

    However, given all that, I will be going for a digital camera when the
    price drops on the 10-12mp cameras. But after trying numerous digital
    cameras in various camera stores and seeing the results, I'm sticking
    with what I know works well right now. It might take longer to get
    the results back, but sometimes the wait can be very rewarding. And I
    have to admit, I've sometimes taken multiple shots to make sure I get
    the right angle and lighting. My dad got a bit worried when he
    realized I'd used up 17 rolls of films on a five-day vacation once.
    When he saw all the pics I'd taken, he understood it.

    But hey, YMMV.
    -Erik
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when Erik Setzer entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:30:55 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >It was a cold day in September when Erik Setzer entered the world pub known
    > >as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
    > >
    > >> On 17 Mar 2005 10:45:30 -0800, "Chris Valera"
    > >> <grimdarkness@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Yah, do a report, and bringa didgicam. Get some shots of the
    > >> >alternating release schedules. My guess is tehy've got nothing on tap.
    > >> >You can ebay the LE fig to recoup costs, but yah, bringing home a
    > >> >custom model is good too. I'd just build a tank and cramm the interior
    > >> >with bits.
    > >> >
    > >> >Is it *just* a SM Commander, or general bits?
    > >>
    > >> The conversion contest? It's a bunch of bits to build a SM Commander
    > >> or Chaos Lord.
    > >>
    > >> And I'll do better than a digicam, though it'll take a bit longer to
    > >> get the pics back. I'm brining my 35mm camera, it's a lot better than
    > >> any digicam on the market right now.
    > >> -Erik
    > >>
    > >That just isn't true Erik. ALL 35mm camera's regardless of the manufacturer
    > >have to save the image to a little piece of negative film 35mm in size
    > >(roughly 1-3/8" or about the size of a Terminator Marine). You have to worry
    > >about lighting, shadows, glare, and an assortment of other problems, not to
    > >mention the developer problems, if you happen to get your film developed
    > >toward the end of the chemical solutions useful life. Assuming that you
    > >optimize all of those things (which can easily be corrected with a digital
    > >image) there is only so much detail that you can pack into such a small size
    > >even if you use a really good macro lens. On the other hand using a good to
    > >medium quality digicam with a macro lens you can get the equivalent of an
    > >8X10 positive image. Which means instead of recording the details in a
    > >smaller then life size in a inverted color scheme you are recording them in
    > >a larger then life size in true colors. The closest you can come to that
    > >kind of quality with a film type camera, would be a 2-1/4" format SLR with a
    > >macro lens, and even then you will be hard put to reap the same quality that
    > >you would get from an equivalent digicam. To top all of that off, if you
    > >aren't happy with the picture you get digitally, you can simple erase it and
    > >shoot it again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!
    >
    > Granted, I could have said that a lot better. Sure, there are digital
    > cameras that can do a better job than my 35mm can. But as they are
    > all priced well out of my price range, I consider the 35mm to be a far
    > better option. Anything below 8mp is worthless as far as I'm
    > concerned, and you really have to reach the 10-12mp range to make sure
    > you're getting really good quality. 14-16mp is the sweet spot, but as
    > yet is unavailable.
    >
    > Having taken thousands of pictures with this camera and knowing how to
    > use lighting and all the options on it, I'm quite comfortable with
    > saying it's a much better option than any 35mm camera with a
    > reasonable price on the market right now.
    >
    > However, given all that, I will be going for a digital camera when the
    > price drops on the 10-12mp cameras. But after trying numerous digital
    > cameras in various camera stores and seeing the results, I'm sticking
    > with what I know works well right now. It might take longer to get
    > the results back, but sometimes the wait can be very rewarding. And I
    > have to admit, I've sometimes taken multiple shots to make sure I get
    > the right angle and lighting. My dad got a bit worried when he
    > realized I'd used up 17 rolls of films on a five-day vacation once.
    > When he saw all the pics I'd taken, he understood it.
    >

    In the last 30+ years (I won't count the pictures I took before age 20), I
    have taken and developed literally hundreds of thousands of photos, when I
    got a chance to go digital I dumped all my film cameras in a box and have
    never looked back. There's just no comparing film to digital, it's like
    comparing two tin cans and a string with a cell phone. Sure the quality
    might be better with the tin cans, but have you ever tried putting on in
    your pocket?
    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:37:34 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com>
    wrote:

    >In the last 30+ years (I won't count the pictures I took before age 20), I
    >have taken and developed literally hundreds of thousands of photos, when I
    >got a chance to go digital I dumped all my film cameras in a box and have
    >never looked back. There's just no comparing film to digital, it's like
    >comparing two tin cans and a string with a cell phone. Sure the quality
    >might be better with the tin cans, but have you ever tried putting on in
    >your pocket?

    The 35mm may be bulkier, but for the cost and the quality I'll keep it
    for now.
    -Erik
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Chris Valera wrote:
    > John Hwang wrote:

    >>>>Anyone from here going?
    >>
    >>The thought had crossed my mind, as it would be local. But I'll be
    >>roughly halfway around the world, so it doesn't matter.
    >>
    >>>>I was thingking about but had not yet dedcided.
    >>
    >>Are you greater LA? Part of a local group?

    >>And out of curiousity, where are you?
    >
    > SoCal, near LAX.

    Westside Players?

    >>>GW seems to be plugging the LA Games Day all over the place, even
    >>>staff answering the phoner are required to ask customers if they
    >>>want to hear about it. Weird...
    >>
    >>GW is pushing it to see if they can get enough turnout to justify the
    >>event.
    >
    > Sadly, you're right.

    I wonder how well they'll do. I'm not sure that there's much interest.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Desert Lurker wrote:
    > John Hwang wrote:
    >> Are you greater LA? Part of a local group?
    >
    > Alas I have no group, not much of a store and little space to play.

    I suffer from little time to play, but if I were so inclined, I'm about
    15 minutes from the LA Battle Bunker in Westminster, CA.

    >> And out of curiousity, where are you?
    >
    > I am in Ridgecrest, CA 80 miles due east of Bakersfield. so the Ont.
    > Conv. Ctr. is a 'mere' 2+ horus away. here it is on a map.
    >
    > http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=3&mapdata=OE4WNszgW9y223MpjLFz7AtZ7yfVAeco0aRJCh%2bMSzStoIuyAgIa9z3O%2b6YMRWgm5pCeqQGL%2fCbevKZ1%2bCie3RTmrv447xXE%2bDdoxybj0gbW%2f5AHak3sLTWq0L%2bQCjgW9O1J8Cz2hqq6umifg28iE1pjOcNXfZuMGns%2fQIuj4acgttPqzU86avCGr6Qde83RbCJMHCIh4MAroHx0%2fQ%2fiyFZeB5djgrvaQHBODoQ%2fE3GJBrQojNy4cmqzv3sXqJDdicoSvB0n9pcOKH6FF8gbjduPwMW1bBhDOk%2bgMKE9%2fw0VyV0NQ7q1x0ZSDLsxfEKTdrqcsAnsT6Q2IiTP2IYyGutTLzov%2by4YVyUgg%2fClC7Y9kLIW%2fpN54ynzqP3wsLBhPtcQH0k7mn9tKvTknQrm%2bLMRuSgYUEn5Y54cEMoabkYhlSeRW81cvNaNt8Ag5HM6

    Oh...

    > so as you can see anything is 2+ hours away. It's about 3 to Dinseyland
    > and about 2 1/2 to a Dodger game or Magic Mountain.

    I believe Qrab is in your general area (i.e. "high desert"), so you two
    might link up sometime.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Jim M wrote:
    > ALL 35mm camera's regardless of the manufacturer have to
    > save the image to a little piece of negative film 35mm in size

    Correct.

    For comparison, the typical CCD of a good (i.e. Nikon) D-SLR is
    something like 30-32mm, and the CCD of a cheap digicam may be only 7mm.

    > You have to worry about lighting, shadows, glare, and an assortment
    > of other problems,

    Which is also relevant for digicams, too. If the ISO equivalent setting
    is wrong, or the white balance is off, pictures will be washed out or
    suffer, just like film.

    > (which can easily be corrected with a digital image)

    Not necessarily. If the shadow detail is below the black threshold, or
    above the white, the detail will simply be lost. And depending on the
    quality of the noise / sharpening algorithm, you may have moire problems.

    > there is only so much detail that you can pack into such a small size
    > even if you use a really good macro lens.

    True.

    But you are totally fooling yourself if you thing that a non-D-SLR
    digicam has the optics or resolution to support what you're trying to do
    with a film camera.

    > On the other hand using a good to medium quality digicam

    I'm assuming you mean something like 5-6 MP.

    > with a macro lens you can get the equivalent of an
    > 8X10 positive image.

    However, even now, there is NO digital equivalent to slide film in terms
    of resolution and color depth. A properly exposed slide shows excellent
    fine detail even when enlarged to something 6 feet across.

    > Which means instead of recording the details in a
    > smaller then life size in a inverted color scheme you are recording them in
    > a larger then life size in true colors. The closest you can come to that
    > kind of quality with a film type camera, would be a 2-1/4" format SLR with a
    > macro lens, and even then you will be hard put to reap the same quality that
    > you would get from an equivalent digicam.

    Oh, please. To out-gun a digcam, I do *NOT* need a medium-format
    Hasselblad.

    I can get an 8-1/2" x 11" print (roughly 100 sqin) from a slide, and
    scan it at 1200dpi (roughly 1MP/sqin). That'd translates roughly into
    something like the equivalent of 100 MP, or about 10 times the
    resolution of the most powerful pro D-SLRs available today.

    > To top all of that off, if you
    > aren't happy with the picture you get digitally, you can simple erase it and
    > shoot it again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!

    *THIS* is the benefit of digicams, the preview modes. You can check to
    see whether your picture is properly framed, exposed, etc. before you
    commit to printing. And you can then do all sorts of post-processing
    after the fact to correct, crop, enlarge, etc.

    But just like film, you need to have a good base picture that is
    properly exposed, framed, lit, focused and balanced to work with.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <Jqv_d.6113$b_6.1781@trnddc01>,
    John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

    > Desert Lurker wrote:

    > > so as you can see anything is 2+ hours away. It's about 3 to Dinseyland
    > > and about 2 1/2 to a Dodger game or Magic Mountain.
    >
    > I believe Qrab is in your general area (i.e. "high desert"), so you two
    > might link up sometime.

    Depending on weather, traffic conditions, and how fast you drive,
    Ridgecrest is between 45 to 60 minutes away from where I am.

    --
    Be seeing you-
    Qrab
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message news:<fIv_d.8347$GI6.6023@trnddc05>...
    > Jim M wrote:
    > > ALL 35mm camera's regardless of the manufacturer have to
    > > save the image to a little piece of negative film 35mm in size
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > For comparison, the typical CCD of a good (i.e. Nikon) D-SLR is
    > something like 30-32mm, and the CCD of a cheap digicam may be only 7mm.

    Presumably "typical" wouldn't include the D-100, last time I checked
    the most sophisticated (and among the most expensive) digital SLRs on
    the market? I noticed this year that the BBC Wildlife Photographer of
    the Year 2004 was won by a picture taken with the D100's slightly
    older Canon equivalent - the first time the competition was won by a
    digicam. As with the winners of the previous couple of years, it was
    an underwater shot.

    > > You have to worry about lighting, shadows, glare, and an assortment
    > > of other problems,
    >
    > Which is also relevant for digicams, too. If the ISO equivalent setting
    > is wrong, or the white balance is off, pictures will be washed out or
    > suffer, just like film.

    Ah, but you can write over them when that happens so you don't need to
    be as good at photography. Hence the appeal.

    > > To top all of that off, if you
    > > aren't happy with the picture you get digitally, you can simple erase it and
    > > shoot it again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!
    >
    > *THIS* is the benefit of digicams, the preview modes. You can check to
    > see whether your picture is properly framed, exposed, etc. before you
    > commit to printing. And you can then do all sorts of post-processing
    > after the fact to correct, crop, enlarge, etc.
    >
    > But just like film, you need to have a good base picture that is
    > properly exposed, framed, lit, focused and balanced to work with.

    For me the advantage of digicams would be the ability to adjust the
    ISO equivalent as appropriate for every shot, rather than an entire
    film, and the good performance in low light conditions (i.e.
    underwater). With the results I've had with my terrestrial camera, I
    can't see a particular need for a terrestrial digital camera (SLR or
    otherwise).

    Philip Bowles
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Philip Bowles wrote:
    > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote

    >>For comparison, the typical CCD of a good (i.e. Nikon) D-SLR is
    >>something like 30-32mm, and the CCD of a cheap digicam may be only 7mm.
    >
    > Presumably "typical" wouldn't include the D-100, last time I checked
    > the most sophisticated (and among the most expensive) digital SLRs on
    > the market?

    It is. However, it still has a CCD somewhat smaller than 35mm.

    >>If the ISO equivalent setting is wrong, or the white balance is off,
    >>pictures will be washed out or suffer, just like film.
    >
    > Ah, but you can write over them when that happens

    The only benefit is that you know when you've taken a bad one that you
    don't need to develop.

    > so you don't need to be as good at photography.

    Really? I thought you were primarily a nature photographer. How many
    second shots do you get? Like sports, often times, you only get one
    moment to take the shot, and then it's gone forever. It's not like
    still life or landscapes where you've got a bit more time.

    >>>To top all of that off, if you aren't happy with the picture
    >>>you get digitally, you can simple erase it and shoot it
    >>>again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!
    >>
    >>*THIS* is the benefit of digicams, the preview modes. You can check to
    >>see whether your picture is properly framed, exposed, etc. before you
    >>commit to printing. And you can then do all sorts of post-processing
    >>after the fact to correct, crop, enlarge, etc.
    >>
    >>But just like film, you need to have a good base picture that is
    >>properly exposed, framed, lit, focused and balanced to work with.
    >
    > For me the advantage of digicams would be the ability to adjust the
    > ISO equivalent as appropriate for every shot,

    You actually do this? :)

    For me, it's pure convenience.

    > With the results I've had with my terrestrial camera, I can't
    > see a particular need for a terrestrial digital camera (SLR or
    > otherwise).

    One day, I'll get a D-SLR. Just not anytime soon.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Qrab wrote:
    > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
    >>Desert Lurker wrote:
    >
    >>>so as you can see anything is 2+ hours away. It's about 3 to Dinseyland
    >>>and about 2 1/2 to a Dodger game or Magic Mountain.
    >>
    >>I believe Qrab is in your general area (i.e. "high desert"), so you two
    >>might link up sometime.
    >
    > Depending on weather, traffic conditions, and how fast you drive,
    > Ridgecrest is between 45 to 60 minutes away from where I am.

    So you're more than twice as close than any of his alternatives!

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In the new manuscript <fIv_d.8347$GI6.6023@trnddc05>, John Hwang penned
    the following script...

    > Which is also relevant for digicams, too. If the ISO equivalent setting
    > is wrong, or the white balance is off, pictures will be washed out or
    > suffer, just like film.

    ISO whilst important is less of a issue than with film, the latest Canon
    dSLR cameras support a very usable ISO 3200, and some pro's shoot
    exclusively ISO 1600 at concerts. White balance can be corrected very
    easily in Photoshop and can be ignored if a) using a grey card and/or b)
    using RAW. RAW format is appearing on a lot more 'consumer' type
    cameras, it's been offered on Prosumer cameras for a while now...

    > However, even now, there is NO digital equivalent to slide film in terms
    > of resolution and color depth. A properly exposed slide shows excellent
    > fine detail even when enlarged to something 6 feet across.

    I would disagree with this, each medium has it's advantages. Digital has
    a larger gamut and comes close to slide for shadow detail. I am
    referring to a Canon 1Ds 2 and a C1 digital back. In many cases they out
    resolve the lenses attached to the body and these are pro lenses. The
    main problem with digital is the 'cut off' point and it's sharper than
    the gradual drop off of film. Problem with this type of equipment it's
    out of the reach of the 'normal' photographer and hence the 'war'
    between film and digital is rather pointless each have their merits, and
    each will have it's fanatics. I just find digital suitable for my needs
    and cuts down on a lot of unnecessary expenses and time. Why should I
    have to buy a £500 scanner to *just* scan slides/negs at a high enough
    resolution when I can get a digital camera that can produce comparable
    quality. Also you said a print 6feet across, how many people are
    actually going to print something like that? Most people want a 8x10, or
    maybe a 12x16 size print most of the time. Digital takes a lot of effort
    to set up, but far less than say mixing chemicals in a lab...

    Something worth reading:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I5B3217BA

    Some other interesting articles on that site.
    --
    One man, One Camera and a Demented Vision:

    www.CelticShadows.co.uk
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message news:<lKu%d.9196$wL6.7949@trnddc03>...
    > Philip Bowles wrote:
    > > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote

    > >>If the ISO equivalent setting is wrong, or the white balance is off,
    > >>pictures will be washed out or suffer, just like film.
    > >
    > > Ah, but you can write over them when that happens
    >
    > The only benefit is that you know when you've taken a bad one that you
    > don't need to develop.

    Which saves money for a start. I've recently got a 36 exposure back
    from developing, and I plan on keeping 14 of them - not least because
    a fair number are near-duplicates taken to ensure that at least one
    came out, something you don't need to do with digital.

    > > so you don't need to be as good at photography.
    >
    > Really? I thought you were primarily a nature photographer. How many
    > second shots do you get?

    Depends how cooperative the subject is - one of my throwaway shots was
    a fuzzy first picture of a frilled dragon, but I took three more
    pictures of the same animal I can keep. On my current film I took half
    a dozen or more pictures of an eastern brown snake that let me watch
    it for over ten minutes before wandering off, and at some points along
    the local river you only need to wait for a minute or so between
    turtles should you need to. Professional wildlife photographers often
    expose entire films on individual animals to get the best possible
    shot.

    Like sports, often times, you only get one
    > moment to take the shot, and then it's gone forever.

    True, but there are times when it's helpful to have the option. Though
    in the end I only took one picture of the turtle and it came out well.

    > >>>To top all of that off, if you aren't happy with the picture
    > >>>you get digitally, you can simple erase it and shoot it
    > >>>again. It's like getting a Camera that lets you have "do-overs"!
    > >>
    > >>*THIS* is the benefit of digicams, the preview modes. You can check to
    > >>see whether your picture is properly framed, exposed, etc. before you
    > >>commit to printing. And you can then do all sorts of post-processing
    > >>after the fact to correct, crop, enlarge, etc.
    > >>
    > >>But just like film, you need to have a good base picture that is
    > >>properly exposed, framed, lit, focused and balanced to work with.
    > >
    > > For me the advantage of digicams would be the ability to adjust the
    > > ISO equivalent as appropriate for every shot,
    >
    > You actually do this? :)

    I can't, I don't have a digital SLR. :-(

    Philip Bowles
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Faolan wrote:
    > John Hwang penned

    >>Which is also relevant for digicams, too. If the ISO equivalent setting
    >>is wrong, or the white balance is off, pictures will be washed out or
    >>suffer, just like film.
    >
    > ISO whilst important is less of a issue than with film, the latest Canon
    > dSLR cameras support a very usable ISO 3200, and some pro's shoot
    > exclusively ISO 1600 at concerts. White balance can be corrected very
    > easily in Photoshop and can be ignored if a) using a grey card and/or b)
    > using RAW.

    I don't think that we're talking about pros and/or pro cameras...

    > RAW format is appearing on a lot more 'consumer' type
    > cameras, it's been offered on Prosumer cameras for a while now...

    Recall that Jim was talking about a "good to medium quality digicam". I
    don't think that is quite what you're talking about.

    >>However, even now, there is NO digital equivalent to slide film in terms
    >>of resolution and color depth. A properly exposed slide shows excellent
    >>fine detail even when enlarged to something 6 feet across.
    >
    > I would disagree with this, each medium has it's advantages.
    > Digital has a larger gamut and comes close to slide for shadow
    > detail. I am referring to a Canon 1Ds 2 and a C1 digital back.

    Again, you're *well* out of what I was thinking. I was thinking more of
    a "typical" consumer grade digical camera. Hence my specification of
    5-6MP. You're effectively using a D-SLR.

    > In many cases they out resolve the lenses
    > attached to the body and these are pro lenses.

    Are they lenses designed for D-SLR use? Film lenses and digital lenses
    have different characteristics which will show up in the high end
    equipment you're using. Fortunateily, I don't have a lot of

    > each will have it's fanatics.

    Of course. I'm just saying that a properly-fitted film camera should be
    able to outperform a typical (consumer) digital camera.

    > Why should I have to buy a £500 scanner to *just* scan slides/negs
    > at a high enough resolution when I can get a digital camera that
    > can produce comparable quality.

    I said to print the slide at 8x10 inches (about a dollar), then scan the
    print at 1200 dpi. Just about any new scanner is good for scanning at
    1200 dpi, so the scanner might cost $100 USD (50GBP).

    Certainly, a Nikon slide scanner would be nice, but that's not what I'm
    talking about.

    > Also you said a print 6feet across, how many people are
    > actually going to print something like that?

    The nice thing about slides is that you can project them very, very
    large without having to make a print. A typical viewscreen for
    projecting slides is about 6 feet.

    > Digital takes a lot of effort to set up,
    > but far less than say mixing chemicals in a lab...

    IMO, the big thing about digital is the sheer convenience. But to say
    that performance is the same is a pretty big stretch.

    > Something worth reading:
    >
    > http://makeashorterlink.com/?I5B3217BA
    >
    > Some other interesting articles on that site.

    Thanks!

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when Faolan entered the world pub known as
    rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > Digital takes a lot of effort
    > to set up, but far less than say mixing chemicals in a lab...
    >
    >
    ....and this last part is the thing I like most about digital. You can simply
    plug the camera into the computer, bring the images up on photoshop and
    tweak the levels, to get a very satisfactory picture. The Chemicals are a
    pain in the ass to mix and use, they are also expensive and have a shelf
    life that you always nee to worry about. Of course the fact that I no longer
    having the room to set up a decent lab doesn't help either...

    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Philip Bowles wrote:
    > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote...

    >>The only benefit is that you know when you've taken a bad one that you
    >>don't need to develop.
    >
    > Which saves money for a start. I've recently got a 36 exposure back
    > from developing, and I plan on keeping 14 of them - not least because
    > a fair number are near-duplicates taken to ensure that at least one
    > came out, something you don't need to do with digital.

    True.

    >>>so you don't need to be as good at photography.
    >>
    >>Really? I thought you were primarily a nature photographer. How many
    >>second shots do you get?
    >
    > Depends how cooperative the subject is - one of my throwaway shots was
    > a fuzzy first picture of a frilled dragon, but I took three more
    > pictures of the same animal I can keep. On my current film I took half
    > a dozen or more pictures of an eastern brown snake that let me watch
    > it for over ten minutes before wandering off, and at some points along
    > the local river you only need to wait for a minute or so between
    > turtles should you need to. Professional wildlife photographers often
    > expose entire films on individual animals to get the best possible
    > shot.

    Quality through volume. OK. ;)

    Personally, I try to avoid multi-shooting unless I see something
    interesting.

    >> Like sports, often times, you only get one
    >> moment to take the shot, and then it's gone forever.
    >
    > True, but there are times when it's helpful to have the option. Though
    > in the end I only took one picture of the turtle and it came out well.

    Sure.

    >>>For me the advantage of digicams would be the ability to adjust the
    >>>ISO equivalent as appropriate for every shot,
    >>
    >>You actually do this? :)
    >
    > I can't, I don't have a digital SLR. :-(

    You're not alone.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:587631d1.0503211452.2852856c@posting.google.com...
    > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    > news:<lKu%d.9196$wL6.7949@trnddc03>...

    > Like sports, often times, you only get one
    >> moment to take the shot, and then it's gone forever.
    >
    > True, but there are times when it's helpful to have the option. Though
    > in the end I only took one picture of the turtle and it came out well.

    Was it one of those satanic turtles?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/03/21/evil.turtle.ap/index.html


    --

    -smithdoerr
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when Janet Quick entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > On 3/21/05 9:28 PM, in article
    > MPG.1ca888a1ccc46aa698a4f1@news.west.earthlink.net, "Jim M"
    > <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > It was a cold day in September when Faolan entered the world pub known as
    > > rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
    > >
    > >> Digital takes a lot of effort
    > >> to set up, but far less than say mixing chemicals in a lab...
    > >>
    > >>
    > > ...and this last part is the thing I like most about digital. You can simply
    > > plug the camera into the computer, bring the images up on photoshop and
    > > tweak the levels, to get a very satisfactory picture. The Chemicals are a
    > > pain in the ass to mix and use, they are also expensive and have a shelf
    > > life that you always nee to worry about. Of course the fact that I no longer
    > > having the room to set up a decent lab doesn't help either...
    > >
    > Um...most of us just drop the film off at the 24-hour place.
    >
    >
    You mean you actually let other people develop your film... <shudders>
    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Jim M wrote:
    > Janet Quick entered ...

    >>>Of course the fact that I no longer
    >>>having the room to set up a decent lab doesn't help either...
    >>
    >>Um...most of us just drop the film off at the 24-hour place.
    >
    > You mean you actually let other people develop your film... <shudders>

    Hey, it's not like most of us have the space to set up our own
    developing labs... ;)

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang wrote:

    > Philip Bowles wrote:

    >> With the results I've had with my terrestrial camera, I can't see a
    >> particular need for a terrestrial digital camera (SLR or
    >> otherwise).
    >
    >
    > One day, I'll get a D-SLR. Just not anytime soon.

    I've been thinking about getting one recently. The April issue of
    Popular Photography & Imaging magazine has a digital SLR shoot-out of 9
    models under US$ 2000.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Brion K. Lienhart wrote:
    > John Hwang wrote:

    >> One day, I'll get a D-SLR. Just not anytime soon.
    >
    > I've been thinking about getting one recently. The April issue of
    > Popular Photography & Imaging magazine has a digital SLR shoot-out of 9
    > models under US$ 2000.

    That's about 4-5 times what I intend to pay when I buy.

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when John Hwang entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > True. The trick is in how those 1s and 0s are encoded. That means you
    > need a good digital-to-analog CODEC algorithm. I do not believe that
    > the current technology is fully mature.
    >
    Actually it is, it comes in the form of the scanner attached to many of our
    computers today, ever plop a mini on a scanner and import it into a graphics
    program at 1200 dpi? It picks up details that you didn't even know was
    there. It's a shame that isn't yet available in a digital camera...

    By the same token if you scan a picture at 1200 dpi, you have to apply a
    blur/sharpen technique to get a smooth picture that doesn't show either
    printing dots, film grain or moire patterns. I have seen a number of people
    who thought their scanner wasn't any good because they saw moire patterns,
    when reality it was just a little operator head space...

    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:53:41 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com>
    wrote:

    >By the same token if you scan a picture at 1200 dpi, you have to apply a
    >blur/sharpen technique to get a smooth picture that doesn't show either
    >printing dots, film grain or moire patterns. I have seen a number of people
    >who thought their scanner wasn't any good because they saw moire patterns,
    >when reality it was just a little operator head space...

    Scanning can be a pain sometimes because of that. There's also the
    issue of what your PC can handle. My scanner is 2400x1200 dpi, IIRC,
    but if I try scanning 1200 dpi (the max I can choose) the PC refuses
    to do anything, it just locks up the scanning program. So I have to
    tune down to 600 dpi, and even then I have to do a little softening,
    picture cleanup, all that jazz. And in the case of the seminar photos
    I scanned last night, I had to do some color correction with a lot of
    them, because they turned up way too blue (which I should have
    expected, since the projector was giving everything a bluish tint in
    the room).
    -Erik
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when Erik Setzer entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:53:41 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >By the same token if you scan a picture at 1200 dpi, you have to apply a
    > >blur/sharpen technique to get a smooth picture that doesn't show either
    > >printing dots, film grain or moire patterns. I have seen a number of people
    > >who thought their scanner wasn't any good because they saw moire patterns,
    > >when reality it was just a little operator head space...
    >
    > Scanning can be a pain sometimes because of that. There's also the
    > issue of what your PC can handle. My scanner is 2400x1200 dpi, IIRC,
    > but if I try scanning 1200 dpi (the max I can choose) the PC refuses
    > to do anything, it just locks up the scanning program. So I have to
    > tune down to 600 dpi, and even then I have to do a little softening,
    > picture cleanup, all that jazz. And in the case of the seminar photos
    > I scanned last night, I had to do some color correction with a lot of
    > them, because they turned up way too blue (which I should have
    > expected, since the projector was giving everything a bluish tint in
    > the room).
    > -Erik
    >
    Send me an e-mail and I'll share a few scanning tips I have picked up over
    the years. They aren't really appropriate for this newsgroup though...
    --
    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cad3c8f33210f2798a4f5@news.west.earthlink.net...

    > Send me an e-mail and I'll share a few scanning tips I have picked up over
    > the years. They aren't really appropriate for this newsgroup though...

    Em...exactly what is it you've been scanning?! And if they're something
    kinky and/or disgusting how could they *not* be appropriate for this NG?


    --

    -smithdoerr
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    It was a cold day in September when smithdoerr entered the world pub known
    as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

    >
    > "Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1cad3c8f33210f2798a4f5@news.west.earthlink.net...
    >
    > > Send me an e-mail and I'll share a few scanning tips I have picked up over
    > > the years. They aren't really appropriate for this newsgroup though...
    >
    > Em...exactly what is it you've been scanning?! And if they're something
    > kinky and/or disgusting how could they *not* be appropriate for this NG?
    >
    They are neither kinky nor disgusting, which coupled with the fact that
    scanning is way off topic (even for me) for this newsgroup it makes the tips
    inappropriate.

    As to what I've been scanning it includes Comic Book Covers, Baseball Cards,
    Magazine Covers, Photos, The rules for WarZone, duped babies and dead mini's
    you know... off topic stuff--

    Jim M

    "Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
    "The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
    Groucho Marx

    http://jimac.tripod.com
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <3ai4t9F6da3tnU1@individual.net>, smithdoerr,
    askmeforname@hotmail.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
    >
    > "Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1cad3c8f33210f2798a4f5@news.west.earthlink.net...
    >
    > > Send me an e-mail and I'll share a few scanning tips I have picked up over
    > > the years. They aren't really appropriate for this newsgroup though...
    >
    > Em...exactly what is it you've been scanning?! And if they're something
    > kinky and/or disgusting how could they *not* be appropriate for this NG?
    >
    >
    >
    Hey, He's a big H.P. Lovecraft fan so he's got...


    Wait...


    Wait for it...


    ----> lots and lots of 'squidy' porn!


    I know - bloody awful. But it's RGMW at it's finest.

    Myr

    --
    He really should pay us for that you know, you can't just have any old
    yob carrying on these traditions.

    - Kurt

    RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games