Jump to content


Photo

Sony wanted the Genesis to be 4K;


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:44 AM

I am not sure which is the best folder to put this in, as it covers quite a few issues, including RED. It's interesting wherever it belongs.

According to this Studio Daily article, Sony originally wanted the Genesis to be a 4K camera, but John Galt insisted it should be 1920 x 1080.
  • 0

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:04 AM

The Genesis being 4k could be taken as part of a debate in the engineering trade offs that are involved in designing a camera or any other product. At that time, 4k was less of issue, since most DI being done then were 2k.

It'll be interesting to see if the Arri D21 goes for a 4k chip, although I suspect they'll stay with their current 3k size.
  • 0

#3 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:49 AM

The Genesis being 4k could be taken as part of a debate in the engineering trade offs that are involved in designing a camera or any other product. At that time, 4k was less of issue, since most DI being done then were 2k.

It'll be interesting to see if the Arri D21 goes for a 4k chip, although I suspect they'll stay with their current 3k size.

I can see Galt's point of view to some extent. Apart from the fact that he probably saw 4K as being effectively "wasted" when most places were , as you say, only set up for 2K, there are obvious advantages in making a camera that fits into the existing workflow infrastructure. Despite being promoted as a "Digital Cinematography" camera, the Genesis's predecessor, the CineAlta, is used far more for TV production than feature films, and it sems likely that the Genesis will follow suit.

I think a problem many RED purchasers will encounter will be the reluctance of existing production facilities to go out of their way to accomodate the RED way of doing things. If the RED had provision for producing a high quality live 1920 x 1080 output, and some sort of inexpensive Hard Disk-based recorder that could be easily slotted into an HDCAM workflow, that would open up opportunities for small startup outfits to more or less get a foot in the industry door, as occasions arise where rentable cameras are scarce.

As it is, the fact that the captured footage (or gigabyte-age:-) has to go through sometimes lengthy "processing" in a computer before the end user can even start editing it, is likely to produce considerable "consumer resistance". Certainly CF card recording is cheap, but on professional productions, time is far more expensive.

Ideally, the RED would still retain all its full-resolution capabilities for when they are called for, but still be able to earn its keep as an HD camera. Well, that's how I would have designed it anyway.
  • 0

#4 Evangelos Achillopoulos

Evangelos Achillopoulos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:59 AM

John Galt said:

“More pixels do not necessarily create more resolution,” declared Galt, “but can harm overall image performance.” To explain, he recalled "a big argument with Japan" from his tenure as project leader on the group that developed the Panavision Genesis. “I argued vociferously for 1920x1080 RGB,” Galt said. “They were keen on building a 4K camera — which would have been one of the UHD 3840x2160 versions [proposed by NHK]. The main reason we didn’t do that is the pixel would get so small we’d lose two stops of sensitivity and two stops of dynamic range.” That’s because the size of individual pixels on a 35mm imager determines those stats — bigger is better because bigger photosensors can capture more light.

Galt then mounted an argument for MTF (modulation transfer function) — cascaded across all components in an imaging system — as the single best measurement of “system resolution.” Determining the resolution of a film-based system, for instance, would require accounting for the MTF of a camera’s lens, the film negative, the interpositive, the internegative, the print, and the lens in the projector. The weakest link in that chain can have a dramatic detrimental effect on the final quality of an image. “Even if each of those parameters has a 90 percent MTF, the final system is only 53. If each parameter is 90 percent except for one parameter that is 60, the final will be 35 percent.

“We have fallen into this trap of defining cameras in the context of 1K, 2K, 4K or megapixels,” Galt continued. “It’s only one parameter. The system MTF measurement is the only way to characterize a complete system. If the MTF is less than 35 or 40 percent, the image is going to be out of focus.”

A working knowledge of MTF factors in a given system can lead to some important conclusions, Galt said. For instance, he estimated that a “good Nikkor lens” has an MTF of only about 30 percent at 4K resolution. “If you’re scanning film at 4K — unless you have extraordinary scanning optics — you’re wasting money,” he said."

I don't remeber how many times I was analizing that subject on this forum and others.

Thats why Varicam has that great DR because the pixel size are even smaller in comparison to the Cinealtas F23. Except from new F35 (Genesis) that because of the size of the sensor it has a similar pixel size...

I have post this link that is an independed study about the resolution of theaters, numerus times...

35mm resulotion study

Its evidend that the average resolution in our next door theatre is no more than 700 lines!

If you print directly from the first intermediate a film shoot on 720p and a film shoot on 1080p will not have a difference that would be noticeable from the average viewer in a theatrical release. In my personal opinion from the 20 film outs and 2K DIs that Im aware of I cant see any difference. What I can see is the lack of latitude and shallow depth of field in some cameras. With Varicam I certainly don't have the latitude problem but the DoF is remain to be solved. I actually have something ready in a while that will surpass Pro35 by far and with NO diffusion look...

Resolution is useful for very large distribution something like more than 5000 copies which is useful for the 5% of the total worldwide film production. And its useful only in order to make many DUPs certainly not for image quality reasons.

Imagine that a Greek block baster has a distribution of 200 copies. It can easily printed from one inter-negative. So we don't need the extra resolution in order to be wasted for inter-negative > inter-positive's> and lots of inter-negatives again... just a straight print will cover the 99% of the features that we produce in our small country. I thing this is the case for the 95% of the rest of the world.

Countless times I have said that scanning in 4K its a waste.

Thanks god that a person like John makes a statement like that.

If you search the internet you will find that John has this position since 2004 so its not a marketing move against RED.

John Galt is Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging.
  • 0

#5 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:15 AM

John Galt said:

?More pixels do not necessarily create more resolution,?

?We have fallen into this trap of defining cameras in the context of 1K, 2K, 4K or megapixels,?

"Countless times I have said that scanning in 4K its a waste."


How many times some of us have said over and over it's the MTF of the chain, not the chip, the lens or the format alone. But marketing trumps reality. And 90% of people today only measure life in terms of 100 meg recording, horizontal resolution, and 4:2:2, all together about 1/3 of the equation. And now it's all marketing and little reality. It's no different than the silly arguements of 1080 vs 720 or plasma vs lcd, and to some degree color sub-sampling. As for 4k, eventually you get to a place where your just not going to squeeze that much more juice out of a lemon that is going to really affect the volume in the glass. Of course the SFX folks would disagree, but that is because they are under the marketing spell of the computer industry that keeps making 'bigger' and 'better'... that's another topic.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:44 AM

It's a complicated subject and even discussing it in terms of MTF alone doesn't account for all the variables in perceived sharpness of the final image on the big screen (and even that is further affected by viewing distance, projection quality, scene contrast, etc.)

However, I very much disagree that 720P origination is equal to 35mm origination once you release a movie theatrically. Starting out with less resolution only means that the resolution loss that the chain of events leading to a presentation in the theaters causes will be worse than if you started out with more resolution to lose. You need a certain amount of "oversampling" unless you can guarantee that you will skip certain causes of resolution loss (for example, can you release in direct contact prints from the output digital negative? Can you only release in 2K digital projection?)

I've posted this before, but the examples in this article clearly demonstrate the advantages to at least scanning at 4K even for a 2K D.I.:
http://digitalconten...cial/index.html
  • 0

#7 Evangelos Achillopoulos

Evangelos Achillopoulos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 14 March 2008 - 11:41 AM

David I have done film out of the ISO res chart in 4K raster in inter-negative and I personally see along with the Kodak guys the resolution on a microscope 100x and it was reaching the 1600 lines.
We did a direct answer print to 2383 and we project it on a studio Kinoton projector with new lenses and the resolution on the center was 680 lines and on the sides 610.

I shoot the same chart with Varicam > process it > film out on inter > answer print results:

Microscope 700 lines, projection 680 and on the sides 610...

Check the same on a big multiplex screen, the same results...

If you do the same test with 1080p you will realize that you have to blur the image a bit at the end because it has to much sharpness. The famous story of "Pinocio".

So for low volume distribution up to 1000 copies, for us that we are on the other side of the planet, resolution is meaningless.

For big studio productions its another story, tooo... many generations...

As for Digital projection... In Greece we have 2 or 3 screens... until we will be able to release locally a feature in digital, we need another ten years...

Their is a madness around the world about resolution and none-one is noticing big issues like 5000K hard balance...
  • 0

#8 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2008 - 11:57 AM

Evangelos,

Often the issue is that people see what they want ot see regardless of reality. I have done many a side by side test of monitors and unless I put some idea in peoples heads, they never get it right and always think they are picking the monitor with higher resolution. 4k sounds so big that most folks will simply say, how could it be wrong. But as I say all the time, it's not one element but the chain that gets you there. I can send one video to five places for filmout and get five differnt results.
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 March 2008 - 01:51 PM

> The main reason we didn?t do that is the pixel would get so small we?d lose two stops of sensitivity
> and two stops of dynamic range

I'm sure there's a camera out at the moment which has very high resolution but really crappy dynamic range. Can't remember what it's called...

P
  • 0

#10 Cesar Rubio

Cesar Rubio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Mexico/Wisconsin

Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:07 PM

I am not sure which is the best folder to put this in, as it covers quite a few issues, including RED. It's interesting wherever it belongs.

According to this Studio Daily article, Sony originally wanted the Genesis to be a 4K camera, but John Galt insisted it should be 1920 x 1080.



It's funny, Its the first time that I actually see a statement like this one! I agree totally with it.

Everybody wants to believe (especially the 4K fanatics), that 4k has the resolution of 35mm film (they want you to overlook all the great 1080p cameras out there).

But honestly, 1080p has the resolution of a 35mm (Cinema) film frame.

I made some test based in visual comparisons of 35mm film vs. digital origination and the results says it all!

I don't care what a (paid BTW) geek has to say about this tests being wrong with a microscope, what it counts its the visual experience.

Cinema is about natural visual results, NOT lab (patronized) results that side to the 4K cameras.


You can see the details here:


http://www.davidrubi...amp;forum_id=78


I prefer 1080p for the workflow, and if the sensor is a CCD the better. I don't like the Rolling shutter problems of CMOS (any, not just the 4K ones).

Thanks,
Cesar Rubio.
  • 0

#11 Robert Torrance

Robert Torrance
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer

Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:23 PM

> The main reason we didn?t do that is the pixel would get so small we?d lose two stops of sensitivity
> and two stops of dynamic range

I'm sure there's a camera out at the moment which has very high resolution but really crappy dynamic range. Can't remember what it's called...

P


Phil, would mind posting your sources for this crappy dynamic range. And how many stops is "crappy". Being that this is the Red thread I assume you mean the Red camera. Also, what kind of dynamic range does a Nikon D3 have? This is really interesting.

Thanks

Bob Torrance
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:32 PM

I know it's a complex topic, but I also know that, from my own experience, when I compared a contact print of 35mm negative that I shot to the same negative gone through a 2K D.I. output IN stock and contact printed... the 2K D.I. version was softer. And that 2K material was cut into the original negative, and the whole movie went through and IP and IN, and in the final release prints, even in crappy theaters... the 2K material was still visibly softer.

And I've shot eight 1080P features, and four of them went out to 35mm, so I have a good sense of how 1080P transfers to film and how sharp it looks.

And I try to see all or part of most every digitally-shot feature released theatrically just to check on current quality levels. It takes a lot of dedication to sit through some of them...

And this is where I admit that it's not black & white because some of them look pretty close to 35mm resolution, particularly if they are digitally released or released through show prints off of the original digital I.N. -- but in those cases, I'm comparing them to the average 35mm movie released through and IP and IN step.

However, I'm trying to recall how many 720P features have ever been released theatrically -- the only one I can recall seeing was "Borat". I know there were a few others. I mean, I saw a 35mm show print of a 480P feature shot on the SDX900 that looked pretty good.

Resolution isn't everything and obviously 720P isn't really a true measure of resolution, but resolution isn't meaningless either. We've got to stop accepting this "rounding down" of quality at some point, except for low-budget work where there was no choice but to work with cheaper technologies. I sure don't want to see 720P origination accepted as a cinema standard except due to budgetary circumstances or for documentary work, just as I wouldn't want Super-16 to replace 35mm as the new standard for theatrical releases. For HDTV broadcast, 720P is fine by me. For low-budget features and documentaries, sure, why not.

Engineers can measure all the test charts they want to... but it's funny when you actually ask them to tell them the name of a feature shot in 720P that was released theatrically on the big screen that matches the picture quality and resolution of something shot in 35mm, they never can think of one. I just want to see a real-world example, that's all. Which is why I catch as many of these digitally-shot features as I can, which is why I took time off from my current feature to see most of "The Other Boleyn Girl", for example.

I think 4:4:4 1080P comes close to 35mm resolution, once you see it on the big screen, it's certainly in the ballpark... I don't think it can quite achieve what good 35mm anamorphic photography can achieve though in terms of detail in wide shots.

Of course, we also have to separate what might be the best scanning resolution for 35mm versus how much resolution a digital camera seems to have. We've all seen the phenomenon where a 1080P digitally shot feature looks too sharp in the close-ups yet blurrier in the wide shots on the big screen. So there are textural qualities to sharpness and detail where film and digital behave differently, not just due to the use of electronic sharpening. I believe the fixed grid pattern of photosites in digital cameras and pixels in digital recordings simultaneously allows some things to seem sharper-edged (even without edge enhancement) whereas seems to soften other types of edges or lines. So some types of fine detail will pop more and others seem blunted more.

As for not needing to scan 35mm in 4K, why isn't anyone commenting on the examples in the article I posted? They clearly show the something is lost when scanning at 2K:
http://digitalconten...cial/index.html
  • 0

#13 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:14 PM

"Also, what kind of dynamic range does a Nikon D3 have?"

Apples and oranges when trying to compare still cameras to motion picture cameras. One is designed to take a great still and the other take a great still while still weaving it into a series of frames that maintain temporal integrity.


"why isn't anyone commenting on the examples in the article I posted? "


I know I don't because it shows spatial resolution examples. While they may appear absolute on 100x blown up stills, the temporal resolution of film often does something to the overall texture and feel that in my mind often negates some of the issues presented in the article.

The article itself says it best to me:

[comparing 4k origination for projection to 2k] "Those benefits would be small, but apparent to the well-trained viewer in an optimal environment."

I know optimum environments in the theaters I patronize does not exist. And even when it does, if the sign in the background of a shot is infinitesimally blurrier than it would be with 4k, I don't care. Show me that same article with the person in focus (what I'm supposed to be watching in a film) and the differences will be even less than looking for stair stepping and all the other elements he needs to blow frames up to unrealistic sizes to see. Like the chain of MTF with picture quality, I think there is a MTF with elements of music, sound and picture in presentation and when all are done right, they average out quite nicely. I remember I used to shoot some theater promos and when I finally saw them on an occasional trip to the theater, any loss in quality from my original was easily negated by everything else that went on. If 4k was twice, or even once better than 2k, I'd say why not, but it's such a small difference to me, that I really don't think it's going to make or break a production. For the added cost, is a film shot in NYC really going to suffer? Hey everyone would like to end up shooting on 65 mm, but one has to weigh what really needs to be shot on everything else and ask is it really going to make a difference other than some lamp post in the background, compared to story, setting, budget, and ease of workflow. If film was the only future of the medium, I'd say let's go for more, but digital is and is becoming such an standard part of the process, that I think it's like everyone going to a car lot with $1000 and asking for a Hummer. But then again I work both sides of the line in production so I've learned to concentrate on it all so maybe I'm too forgiving. There will be new methods in the process coming around the bend that will maintain even better integrity to what we have while using the same process so I think it is a wash when looking down the road.

For SFX 4k is great, for general cinematography, I just don't see it as night and day difference nor worth the expense for 90% of what is shot today. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:29 PM

I don't disagree that the quality issue is part of a broader consideration of budget, logistics, artistic intent, etc. -- if I didn't agree with you on that, I perhaps would not have shot as many HD features as I did... nor done a 2K or HD D.I. on some movies, or shot Super-16, etc.

I think that's a different argument though than whether such differences actually exist technically.

I'm selfish and egotistical... I want my cinematic moviegoing experiences to be better, not mediocre, not average, not merely acceptable, and certainly not poor. I want the option of getting more picture quality if I deem it useful to that particular project, and I want people to see that movie at the quality level that I feel best represents it. For one movie, maybe it means I want the right to shoot it on Super-8 or consumer DV, for another, maybe 65mm or IMAX or 4K or 6K digital, whatever.

If 35mm has the potential to have more quality squeezed out of it, then for certain projects, I may want that option. Which gets more and more remote as general presentation standards slip.

Even if I only shot for TV broadcast, I'd be quite depressed at the level of compression being used by many digital broadcasters, to the point where you have to shoot and show HDTV just to get back to some quality level you were used to with good NTSC broadcasts ten years ago... Well, it's the same thing for theatrical presentations -- either you accept that quality is generally dismal and you shoot with that quality level in mind, or you spend your life arguing for mildly higher standards and pushing against the tide of mediocrity within professional reason.
  • 0

#15 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:45 PM

I don't disagree that the quality issue is part of a broader consideration of budget, logistics, artistic intent, etc. -- if I didn't agree with you on that, I perhaps would not have shot as many HD features as I did... nor done a 2K or HD D.I. on some movies, or shot Super-16, etc.

I think that's a different argument though than whether such differences actually exist technically.

I'm selfish and egotistical... I want my cinematic moviegoing experiences to be better, not mediocre, not average, not merely acceptable, and certainly not poor. I want the option of getting more picture quality if I deem it useful to that particular project, and I want people to see that movie at the quality level that I feel best represents it. For one movie, maybe it means I want the right to shoot it on Super-8 or consumer DV, for another, maybe 65mm or IMAX or 4K or 6K digital, whatever.

If 35mm has the potential to have more quality squeezed out of it, then for certain projects, I may want that option. Which gets more and more remote as general presentation standards slip.

Even if I only shot for TV broadcast, I'd be quite depressed at the level of compression being used by many digital broadcasters, to the point where you have to shoot and show HDTV just to get back to some quality level you were used to with good NTSC broadcasts ten years ago... Well, it's the same thing for theatrical presentations -- either you accept that quality is generally dismal and you shoot with that quality level in mind, or you spend your life arguing for mildly higher standards and pushing against the tide of mediocrity within professional reason.



I can't find any fault in your thoughts! It's all subjective. Imagine if it wasn't? We'd all like hte same films and all have teh same style. ;)
  • 0

#16 Evangelos Achillopoulos

Evangelos Achillopoulos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:59 PM

David I understand, you are far away...

In Greece from the 20 features per year that the local production is doing, 30% is S16, 20% is in 35mm and the rest is digital. But wait, cinema class digital is just the 1/2 of digital the rest is DV HDV and broadcast HD.

All the features that being made with film are not making any money at all.

The last big film was "ElGreco" I dont thing that has made the break even point...

The commercial film production they have a budget of 400K$ and they selling at most 250K tickets. typical numbers is 100K tickets...

Why they still using film? Because they want to be trendy... You know thing big...

To rent a Viper or a Genesis or even an F23 is crazy dreams. So to cover the "thing big psychology" they using S16 which against 720p or 1080p is almost crap. And its crap because the labs are crap and the cameras are very old and not properly serviced (vary bad registration).

So many features with HDW750 and of-coarse to be everything burned is art...

I have printed 4 fetures with Varicam one of them went to Cannes in 2006 at the "saimaine de la critique" it was also listed in the Variety. The film was the "soul kicking" or "I psihi sto stoma" IMDB link In the International Festival of Thessaliniki when projected it was the best film-out ever seen in the festival, everyone was thinking that it should be film 35mm...

In comparison with Cinealtas and 750 it was by far better. But not due to resolution, instead because of latitude and filmic texture.

We have different perspectives in different areas of the world.

my 2/3 of the film-outs they don't print more than 20 copies...

Geof Boyle at a show in Paris has seen an unmarked projection and it was stating on a post at CML that Varicam footage was so good that was unbelievable to him and that HPX3000 was looking better than even F23 and RED...
  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:19 PM

It helps a lot when you don't have to go through an IP & IN for a release print. I look forward to seeing one of your film-outs.
  • 0

#18 DJ Joofa

DJ Joofa
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:33 PM

I believe the fixed grid pattern of photosites in digital cameras and pixels in digital recordings simultaneously allows some things to seem sharper-edged (even without edge enhancement) whereas seems to soften other types of edges or lines. So some types of fine detail will pop more and others seem blunted more.


That could be due to all so elusive Kell factor. It would appear that wide angle shots of fine detail such as trees and shrubs, more so in anamorphic sequeezing, will smear out some detail because of Kell factor which has been variously reported from 0.64 - 0.9.
  • 0

#19 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 March 2008 - 06:39 PM

Why they still using film? Because they want to be trendy... You know thing big...

Oh please, don't presume that the only reason people shoot film is because they want to be 'trendy'. Different people have different reasons for shooting on film, some of which go beyond the mere technical considerations of an engineer.
  • 0

#20 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2008 - 06:42 PM

Oh please, don't presume that the only reason people shoot film is because they want to be 'trendy'. Different people have different reasons for shooting on film, some of which go beyond the mere technical considerations of an engineer.


Absolutely true. I don't think many people who choose film do so to be trendy. I know I don't. I use both and use what works best for a job, not because one is easier or cooler or looks sharper on a chart.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

CineLab

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport