User talk:Elzzupa: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 00:19, 24 May 2013

Welcome to IMFDB

Before you do any editing please take the time to read the Rules, Standards and Principles. This is a very important document that explains how this website is setup as well as telling you what is and isn't allowed. If it is determined by an admin that you have not read these rules, your account will be suspended. Continued non-compliance may result in a permanent ban.

There are a number of pages that desperately need your help. You can find these Incomplete pages here.

If you have any questions, feel free to post them here but make sure to sign your post by typing --~~~~.

Finally, IMFDB has a forum set up here that is only available to registered members. There is lots of good stuff to see there. If you would like to join the forum, please post HERE and an account will be created for you.

Now, HAPPY EDITING! Zackmann08 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Screenshots

What program are you using to get screenshots? And please crop the black bars from your screenshots and re-upload. Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Yes, your screenshots appear to be of inferior quality. If you're capturing from a streaming source like Netflix, I would recommend Fast Stone Image Viewer, which allows you to capture your computer screen and then crop off any excess information. Before uploading any more screenshots, please consider this or another better capturing program. --Ben41 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (EST)

I have downloaded Fast Stone but I am unable to capture screen shots from my DVD copy. Can you recommend a solution? I am still trying to figure this thing out. --Elzzupa1 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2013 (PST)

If you have the DVD, you can use VLC. That has a screencap button, as well as a frame-by-frame button. --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (EST)

Please remember to tag your screenshots with [[Category: Screenshot]] and poster and cover art with [[Category: Poster and Cover Art]] . Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2013 (EST)

You should tag the image file itself with [[Category: Screenshot]] , like this (scroll to the botoom.) Please also review the rules on proper titles. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks again, funky. I'm try to learn all the rules. Is there a way to edit those pictures, to include the Category, once they have been uploaded?

You can open the image and click on the edit tab. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Replacing files

If you have a new version of an existing file, you can click on "Upload a new version of this file" rather than uploading under a new name. --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2013 (EST)

Making Pages

First, thanks for your effort, but a few things to remember before making pages for films or television series:

1. Make sure that you have at least some of the firearms identified before finalizing a page, even if it is a work in progress. Putting up a page that has only unidentified weapons in it is not acceptable even if there is a work in progress banner at the top.

2. Make sure that your spelling is correct for the names and characters and especially the title of the film. If you have questions about the title, check how it's spelled in the IMDB.

3. When writing summaries, please use italics for the film's title by using single quotes and not double. There is a button at the top left with an "I" that you can also use.

4. When writing captions, please try to include the firearm seen in your description as well as avoiding obvious spoilers (such as who is shot or killed). The point of the caption should be about the firearm and not necessarily the plot point.

Please also read over the IMFDB Style Guide for some points on making pages as well as the Rules, Standards and Principles. --Ben41 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Out of the Past

Sorry, but there is already a page for the film Out of the Past. Please conduct a search of the site in the future before starting a page. --Ben41 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (EST)

And this is why we emphasize the importance of properly formatting the title. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2013 (EST)

I did search for an existing page and did not find it. I wouldn't duplicate an already existing page. I can't explain the mistake. Sorry for all the problems. I guess I'm not cut out for this work. I won't post again. --Elzzupa 06:31, 10 February 2013 (PST)

No one is suggesting you shouldn't post at all. But you're new and there's much to learn, so just ease yourself into it. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2013 (EST)

My problem is that, while I know a lot about movies, I don't know so much about guns. I have posted photos not knowing the weapon but hoping that somebody else can identify the weapon. Is that prohibited/discouraged by the site's rules? [[User:Elzzupa|Elzuppa}} 11:07, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Making Pages, Part 2

I really don't want to discourage you, but why did you put up another page without even trying to follow the suggestions that were given to you by admins? You didn't properly capitalize the title and all of the weapons are unidentified. Since you're doing films in an earlier time period, I would suggest that you look over previously made pages for Westerns and film noir pages such as The Searchers or films directed by John Huston to see what weapons were used there and see if they are similar to the ones on the page you want to make. It's not fair to put up a page that has nothing identified and expect that others clean up the work. --Ben41 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2013 (EST)

When I created the page, the platform created the name for me. I don't know how to reformat the title and the rules don't tell me how to do it. I guess I thought this was a collaborative enterprise; I didn't expect others to "clean up the work" for me, but I couldn't find a page for this film, which is an important picture with lots of firearms. If this isn't a collaborative enterprise, please let me know. --Elzzupa 15:30, 10 February 2013 (PST)

What, specifically, does "Work in Progress" mean? I assumed it meant, "Help, from those who know more about guns than I do."

It makes "I'm in the middle of working on this right now, please don't make any edits." --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Okay, so does that mean I should post nothing unless I can identify all of the weapons used in the film? --Elzzupa 15:450, 10 February 2013 (PST)

When conducting a search for a film you believe isn't on the site, try typing in the title with the proper capitalization. This way the page will be created with the proper title. You can also "move" the page over by clicking the "move" command located at the top. Please study some of the other complete film pages to see how others do the pages. If you're having trouble making the page, you ask the question either on the Main Page Discussion or try to post the question on admin's discussion page such as mine or Funkychinaman (who has been very gracious to help change the pages to the proper titles). --Ben41 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2013 (EST)

My page formats are all based on funky's "Muppets Movie" page. I'm really not trying to be unhelpful; I am just trying to understand the rules, which aren't always very well stated (e.g., the "move" command--Elzzupa 15:48, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Have you gone through the IMFDB Style Guide and the Rules? And which program are you using again for screencapping? --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Yes, I have gone through the Style Guide and Rules. I found nothing about identifying each weapon before posting a page, which I would gladly do if I knew as much about weapons as my friends on this Board. With all due respect, those with knowledge of weapons and those with knowledge of films ought to be collaborative and supportive of each other, IMHO. When I saw no page for "Network" or an incomplete page for "Body Heat," I thought I could help this community build better pages. It was my impression that Wiki pages are collaborative. I would gladly engage in a collaborative enterprise, but I do not have enough knowledge of firearms to identify all of the weapons used in the films I enjoy. As a firearm owner and NRA member, I appreciate the work you are doing to educate the public and I would like to be a part of that enterprise. But if total knowledge of all firearms is a prerequisite for collaboration here, then I am out of my league. I understand that, for those who wrote the rules, everything is self-explanatory. But I hope you will accept my protestation at face value that I am very supportive of what you are doing here and I would only like to help. Perhaps you might entertain the notion that some of the rules need to be stated better so that novices like myself can contribute to the commonweal. For example, an exemplar of a correct page, something that folks like me could copy, insert the new information, and then post would be helpful. I did, for instance, catch on to the WIP notation without anything about it in the rules. Help me to be a better contributor, understanding that my mistakes might be more common among new posters than you imagine. --Elzzupa 16:01, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Understood. It's just that dumping a bunch of screencaps on a page make it look like you don't care. If you want an example of a good page, go to the main page and click on any of the featured articles. (They're "featured" for a reason.) And the reason why we didn't make any mention of IDing weapons in the rules or style guide is that we didn't think it had to be said. (Otherwise, why are you here?) Like I said before, you should ease yourself into making pages, instead of dropping four pages on us and then getting angry when we tell you you're not doing it correctly. (And if you can't make the IDs, how do you know you're not missing anything?) --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (EST)

And not everyone comes in here as "experts," we pick up knowledge just looking through the pages here. How many users do you think knew the difference between a Beretta 92FS and a Taurus PR92, or could differentiate between SIG-Sauer automatics before they came here? --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Lever Action Rifles and revolvers

I would suggest that if you see a lever action rifle, the first page you should look at is the Winchester page. For revolvers, I would suggest searching the Colt and Smith & Wesson pages first. --Ben41 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2013 (EST)

I will look, but I cannot claim any particular expertise when it comes to specific firearms. --Elzzupa

Heroes for Sale

Much better with Heroes for Sale. Make sure you just watch your spelling and that an unknown firearm that can be easily seen in the screenshot provided (could not make out the handgun). --Ben41 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (EST)

I'm trying, Ben. Thanks for your patience with me.

Are you manually limiting your screencaps to 500 pixels across? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (EST)

No problem. One more thing, generally if you're asking a question and needing a reply from a specific user, it's best to post a question on that user's talk page and not your own. Users aren't usually looking at the recent changes, but will get an alert if someone posted something on their discussion page. Usually you can respond by clicking "talk" next to user's signature. --Ben41 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (EST)

Uploading a new screenshot

To upload a new screenshot over an older one --Ben41 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (EST):

1. Click the screenshot to be modified.

2. Below the "File History", click "Upload a new version of this file".

3. Browse and upload the new version.

4. Change the picture size from 500px or 600px to "501px" or 601px" to see how the new one looks.

No luck. I can't figure out my mistake.--Elzzupa ((User talk:Elzzupa|talk]]) 15:55, 14 Feburary 2013 (EST

Ben means to change the thumbnail size. You already have the thumbnail size set to 600px, but your image size is 500 px. Now it's obvious you're manually setting the image size to 500px. Why don't you leave it the native size? If you have the DVD, it should be around 840-853px. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (EST)

I suppose I'm a bit confused as to the preferred size of screenshots, 500px, 600px, or something else.--Elzzupa (talk) 14:46, 15February 2013 (PST)

If you're getting them from a DVD, just use their native size, should be around 840-853x400-480. If you're using Fast Stone, then they should probably be at least 800 or 900 wide. If you actually have the disc though, just use VLC and you can go frame-by-frame and use the screen capture button. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (EST)

20K under the sea

The IMFDB Style Guide provides guidelines on how to format the pages, such as not including periods in "USS" and what size to set thumbnails to. Please take some time to go over it. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Silence of the Lambs

Why are you uploading new versions of my Silence of the Lambs screenshots? Please state your reasons why you did this because mine are actually from the Blu-ray. Unless you are getting your screenshots from a higher quality source, please avoid replacing my screenshots. --Ben41 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (EST)

I replaced them because they were so dark as to be unrecognizable. I won't replace your photos again, but really, you ought to upload photos that can actually be viewed by visitors. Just because an image is from a Blu-ray doesn't means it is any good. --Elzzupa (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I'm a little more cautious from someone uploading new pictures who's only recently been on the site. You can see when an image goes down 1280 x 720 to something smaller, it draws some attention. It's always better to start from better quality sources when getting screenshots. --Ben41 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Got it. Copied and understood. --Elzzupa (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2013 (PST)

Smith & Wesson Models

Just FYI: In order to differentiate Smith & Wesson revolvers from automatics, the site puts "Model" in front of the number for revolvers and just the number for automatics, as in Smith & Wesson Model 36 and Smith & Wesson 3913.

Also, before finalizing your edits, it's best to tap the "Show Preview" at the bottom to make sure your links are not red. --Ben41 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Thanks for your help and patience Ben. --Elzzupa (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Steel Helmet

Please don't just label the weapon image with the name of the weapon, it's customary to add the caliber as well, so instead of "M1 Garand," it's "M1 Garand - .30-06." You might want to hyperlink some of the actors as well. William Chun only has two screen credits, but Gene Evans has 156. Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

The Big Trail

trail29_sm.jpg does not appear to exist. Is that the right name? --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

For some reason, I was unable to upload the screenshot. I tried three times and received an error message each time. I will keep trying until I get it right. If you haven't seen the film, it is worth your time. Great movie.--Elzzupa (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2013 (PDT)

A few users, including myself, have experienced the same issue. Just tweak the file name and try again. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

Darby's Rangers

Looking good. You're work has shown some real improvement over the past few weeks. Keep it up. --Jcordell (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

the Spook "the most influential African American motion pictures in U.S. history?"

I question that wording. It was obscure and very controversial but where have you seen it lauded as one of the most "influential African American motion pictures in U.S. history"? To say something like that for a movie that has it's supporters AND it's detractors, we should have an attribution (footnote) like Wikipedia. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Virtually unknown to white audiences, the film is only one of two IMFDB Blaxploitation films to be included in the National Film Registry, Shaft (1971) being the other. Elzzupa (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

(1) It is customary to answer the person on their talk page. Not your own. There is no way for people to know you answered their question unless they go looking for it on your page. (2) You already pointed out that this film was virtually unknown to white audiences and that is true. Being listed in the film registry itself does not merit the title of 'one of the most influential' films. Maybe we could consider a change in description to something more neutral. There are many who found the movie offensive and racist, extolling the overthrow of the U.S. Government and stoking the fans of race riots. "Birth of a Nation" is just as offensive from a white supremacist perspective, but it is still listed here at IMFDB. I think with any potentially controversial titles, our descriptions should be purely factual and openly avoid any appearance of advocacy. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

(1) I have been to your talk page and cannot find a way to post a message there. Help, please.

Sorry about that. I forgot that a my talk page was locked for admins only, and I actually don't remember why. I think it was during the feud with Liam and others (usually from the UK) who were constantly vandalizing our pages. I remember that a particular vandal named Liam seemed overly obsessed with hating me. Well. that seems to be over and my apologies. You were right in that you were unintentionally blocked from writing on my talk page. Thanks for the updates and input MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

(2) Perhaps you did not notice my edit. I eliminated the words, "one of the most influential films" (which it was, for black directors), and replaced it with the entirely factual "listing on the National Film Registry." For some reason, I cannot find the page, Birth of a Nation, The, on IMFDB, but simply because it was racist should not preclude its inclusion on the list. In any case, the term, "influential," does not insinuate approval, IMHO. Triumph of the Will is undeniably an influential and evil motion picture. By the same token, John Wayne's The Alamo (1960) is considered to be controversial by Hispanics for its racist, revisionist depiction of the Texas War of Independence, but it is still a worthy of inclusion on the IMFDB, in my opinion.

(3) Your comment did inspire me to create a new category, National Film Registry, of which I hope I have your approval. Thanks. Elzzupa (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

Ivan Dixon and Director Category

Do you plan on creating any more pages for films directed by Ivan Dixon? The general rule is that we do not create a director category until there are at least three of the director's films in the IMFDB. --Ben41 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm glad to know the rule. I'll take a look at his body of work. --Elzzupa (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2013 (PDT)

Ivan Dixon directed Season 2, Episode 20, of The A-Team, Harder Than It Looks. Does that work? If not, I'll pull the page until I can get the third film. --Elzzupa (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2013 (PDT)

Edits on Maxim page

Sorry, your last edit on Maxim page is incorrect. You put in Maxim 1895 section the movies where a Maxim MG08 is seen. These movies are already listed in MG08 section. Greg-Z (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

Sorry, my mistake. :(--Elzzupa (talk) 9:33, 1 May 2013 (PDT)

Adding Categories

Did you consult with anyone before adding the category for Best Picture? Before adding any more categories to the site, please consult with the admins first. With the changes to the site and the sheer amount of categories already established, some of the pages are getting to the point where they are categorized too many different ways. You should articulate reason on why such a new category should be added. If you have a suggestion for a new category, please ask first either on the discussion page or you can make a new thread in the forums. --Ben41 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Director Category

If you're saying you want to remove the directors from the movie category, than that would be okay. However, because the site is undergoing a major overhaul, a lot of the corrections you may want to make might be removed. --Ben41 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Aren't the directors already listed here? Some users placed directors in the movie category due to the amount of films the director was involved with. --Ben41 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Cleanup of the actual pages is always good, but because there's going to be a lot of changes coming, I'm a little apprehensive about messing with the categories too much. --Ben41 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Not only on the movie category page, but as new categories are added, the movie pages themselves become too cluttered at the bottom. --Ben41 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

HD Images

JPGs taken properly from HD sources such as Blu-ray or HD streaming will be significantly better looking than one taken from a commercial DVD. There could be a resolution difference when one uses a screencapture program instead of using one built into a video player such as VLC. --Ben41 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Take a look at the some of the screenshots from The Matrix page. When you click one of the screenshots, you can see the difference in dimensions from a SD DVD screenshot (usually 858 x 377) and a full Blu-ray image (1920 x 726) when it's blown up to full screen. --Ben41 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

A larger .jpg image contains more "information" (the correct term would be data) than a smaller one, because the amount of data that was compressed originally is larger. It's nothing to do with the discs, increasing resolution increases the amount of pixels in a screencap and thus the amount of visible detail. The fact that .jpg is a lossy compression format has absolutely nothing to do with whether a 1920x1080 full HD image allows you to see more detail than an 854x480 SD cap does, please stop talking nonsense. Evil Tim (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Firstly, I would very much appreciate it if you did not break the screen borders of my talk page with images I'm quite capable of clicking on. Secondly, unless you somehow think we can put the DVD image directly onto the site (what would you like here, 3+ meg uncompressed bitmaps?) what you're saying is totally irrelevant because every single image on this site that abides by the rules is already a jpeg. I don't know what you think showing me two different images is supposed to prove; we're talking about replacing existing SD jpeg images with HD-sized versions of the same images. This is a net increase in quality, all things being equal, because both images are compressed in the same way. Evil Tim (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, but we're talking about straight resolution here. A 1920x1080 HD cap has 2,073,600 pixels, an 854x480 SD image has 409,920. Five times more pixels with the same encoding settings means more detail is visible when the image is viewed at full size, which helps with identification. Since the BD image is actually HD sized, you don't have artifacts cased by upscaling which you would create by making a 1920x1080 version of an SD image (and also the new pixels are in the original image rather than just being interpolated by your image editor). Therefore, it is better.

Your image was rather obviously not encoded with the same quality settings as the Matrix image was (having checked, yours is 96 DPI and Ben's is 72), so it's not really a particularly useful comparison point. If I encode an SD resolution video at a very high bitrate and an HD video at a very low bitrate I can get the same result, but that hardly means if I encoded the HD video at the same bitrate as the SD one I wouldn't be able to see more detail. Evil Tim (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Well, I'm afraid I don't see what you were initially objecting to. Kenny's examples were an original 853x364 72DPI image at 79.8 KB and a replacement 1920x800 300DPI image at 321 KB. I can't really see any argument for why the second image wouldn't be better quality than the first one since it is in every sense that can be measured. Evil Tim (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

If I may offer a more direct comparison, I took both versions of this screenshot from both the DVD and the Blu-Ray, using the exact same settings in VLC and Fast Stone. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Sorry to pile in on this as well, but am curious about your source as there is no way that the image you posted on Ben's talk page from Battle Cry can possibly have come from a normal DVD. DVD resolution is either 720x480 or 720x576 depending on whether it is NTSC or PAL, which will be anamorphically stretched for 16:9 video to give a maximum possible viewed resolution on a computer of something like 1024x576 on a computer (which is not a true resolution due to non square pixels unlike on HD sources which have square pixels). On a DVD, 2.4:1 video like Battle cry would be letterboxed, meaning that the maximum size should be 1024x426 or there abouts. This is quite a bit smaller than the 1353x566 that you have got, so either yours is upscaled (possibly unintentionally, depends on how you are capturing it) or from a source other than a normal DVD. --commando552 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Most DVDs I've encountered are no larger than 853x3xx (depending on aspect ratio.) I've never seen a DVD that produces images bigger than that. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

I've screencapped dozens of films, using the disk whenever possible, and I've yet to come across a standard DVD bigger than 853 pixels across. I'm not wrong about my personal experience. I'm in the US however. Are you overseas? --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

No, I don't owe you an apology, as nothing I said was wrong. I never called you a liar, all I said was that the resolution of the screencap that you said was from a DVD is impossible to obtain from a standard DVD unless it is being upscaled at some point. If you are using the screencap feature on VLC this could explain it, as depending on what video drivers you have, what version of VLC and what operating system you are using it on, it can be the case that VLC will just capture an image of the size the video is currently scaled to rather than the actual resolution of the source video. For example if you have the video full screened on the laptop, it could upscale it to the enlarged size rather than the actual size. I know that my old laptop does this, and if I want to get caps that aren't upscaled I need to do it windowed with the zoom set to 1x, and I thought this might be the case with this. If you look in the "Media Information" tab in VLC, what does it state that the resolution of the DVD is? --commando552 (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

"Impossible?" And yet, there it is. My copy of Battle Cry was not only a standard DVD but a used DVD at that. Your claims about what is and what is not possible are a bit incredible at this point, in my humble opinion. --Elzzupa (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

Before you you write anything else I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote, as you seem to be inferring something that isn't there. All I said is the following (and if you scroll up a couple of posts you can see for yourself): Firstly the only reason I ask is because I am curious about the source, not to start a witch hunt. Secondly, to me it doesn't seem possible that the screenshot is from a normal PAL/NTSC DVD that hasn't been upscaled (which I even said could very well have been unintentional dependent on the capturing method, and as i explained later this can happen with VLC), as the resolution is too large based on both personal experience with NTSC and PAL video, and from the maths of what the source resolution should be. Thirdly, this means that your images have either been upscaled at some point or are not from a normal DVD, such as a foreign DVD with a different resolution. I am not calling you a liar, I genuinely want to know how you got an image with this resolution as the size doesn't make sense, and others agree. When that DVD plays on VLC with no cropping is it letterboxed, and what does VLC say the media resolution is? --commando552 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Hey, here's an idea: step back from the PC and calm down. Commando never accused you of lying, he's saying you're mistaken. Lying implies that you know you're not telling the truth. He's correct in what he's saying, it's impossible to get a non-upscaled image of those dimensions from a standard DVD. The image on the disc is simply not that big. He is not backtracking, he is explaining what he meant because you misunderstood him. If you continue being so aggressive towards people trying to address you civilly, you will be the one getting a time out here. Evil Tim (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Okay, now we have the facts. We were not aware you were simply using Print Screen, which would create an image based on your screen resolution. Now that we know, that all makes sense. If you were to try capping your DVD via VLC like we assumed you were, you would see that the resolution is much lower. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes, you used print screen, which means you were taking screenshots of video which was being upscaled by your video player to fit whatever window size you had it set to. You could do the same by setting, say, a 480p Youtube video to fullscreen and using print screen on that, but that wouldn't change that the source video is not actually the same size as your screenshot.

The point with that is that the extra pixels in your image are not part of the source video, they're interpolations created by whatever you were using to play the video. If you take that player and set the video to 100% (or the equivalent setting) instead of fit to window, you'll see the actual size of the video on the disc itself. This is what Commando is talking about; he's saying either you used a non-standard video source which actually was that size (which you weren't), or your screenshots are upscaled from the original resolution (which as it turns out they are). Evil Tim (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Screencapture

I have used several computers from desktops to laptops to capture screenshots. It's not really the monitor that matters unless you are using Fast Stone Image Viewer to capture screenshots. If you are using VLC player, the screencapture will be of the original resolution of the source being played. I have said this before, I capture the image first as a PNG file, because the JPG capture doesn't capture as much detail. Then I convert to JPG using Fast Stone before uploading. When you do it this way, you don't lose as much detail in your image. --Ben41 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

If VLC will not work for you, try to use the software provided with your Blu-ray drive to play back the film and then use Fast Stone Image Viewer to capture the full frame of the screen (instead of Print Screen) and then crop off everything except the screen. If you have purchased the Blu-ray, you can try making a local copy and then use VLC. --Ben41 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Screenshot Comparison

It's not fair to compare two images from two completely different films and completely different film transfers to make an argument about the amount of data in an image. So, here's a comparison of two images from the same film from two different sources:

Here's the shot of Body Heat from your (I suppose DVD) source at (the dimensions are 600x337) shown at 900px:

Here's the shot of Body Heat from my Blu-ray (the dimensions are 1920x1080) shown at 900px :

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Now I understand that both of these images were brightened afterwards, but there's still a little bit of difference in size and the detail of the image (even more when the image is double-clicked). --Ben41 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

When I posted that image, I was under the impression that we were supposed to size down the file.

Here is a brightness/contrast corrected image of my original DVD screenshot:

File:Edmond6 corrected2.jpg

Here is my original screenshot, without color or contrast correction.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Here is the same image, color and contrast corrected:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

--Elzzupa (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

When you contrast-corrected the image, notice the box-like squares on the left? That's because there's not that many pixels in the image. Since the blu-ray image has over 4 times the amount of pixels in the screenshot, the corrected image doesn't have that kind of problem. --Ben41 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

You can see that your corrected image is very blocky compared to the blu-ray image. This is because your video player or image editor is using a method called interpolation to increase the size; basically, it generates extra pixels by looking at the pixels around them for what colour they should be and averaging it for the new ones. This can work for smaller cases of upscaling, but at large scales you get the effect seen here. With an original HD image it doesn't have to do that because the real pixels are already there. Evil Tim (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Let me give you and example:

This is an upscaled version of the 600x338 thumbnail of one of my images for Binary Domain, done in Photoshop.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

This is the original HD image

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

You'll notice the colours are less sharp and less true in the upscaled version, and if you click them and show them full size the upscaled one has a lot of blurring and artifacting from Photoshop effectively guessing what should be going on (you can see this in the text at the bottom even at this size). This is the quality difference we've been talking about. Evil Tim (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Just to say

In all that unpleasantness before you might have got the wrong idea. You do a good job, and we're glad to have you on board. Evil Tim (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Make Sure your entries are eligible

Please make sure that you can at least specifically identify one of the weapons listed in the page you create. Simply adding "moon gun" and "rifle" is not acceptable.

As stated in the Rules, Standards and Principles:

The page must have enough firearms to merit inclusion into the database, thus the page must have more than ONE real firearm in it to qualify. There are some important exceptions to this rule:

1) the firearm is identifiable, well seen and important to the story. A film where 'some character' wields an 'unknown revolver' means nothing.

2) it has enough screen time for any viewer to wonder what make or model it is. .

3) it must drive the plot forward and not be an 'incidental' prop (like something hanging on the wall in the background).

(a) If it is in the background, it must be 'interesting enough' to merit someone asking the question 'what is that?' Thus if it has enough screen time and it is identifiable, it qualifies. If it is a random 'set dressing' or a 'shape' held by a extra, then it does not qualify.

4) the single firearm rule only applies if the firearm is real. If it is an obvious toy or airsoft gun, then it does not qualify. Having a lone character wave around an 'orange plug' airsoft toy does not merit a page. If the film is filled with various replica or high quality airsoft weapons than can fool the casual viewer, then it qualifies, if only to shine light upon the fact that the guns are fakes.

--Ben41 (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

A Trip to the Moon

It's hardly a definitive ID. All I can tell is that it's a rifle and there's a bolt handle. They're either theater prop mockups or something Melies fabricated himself. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm not sure it meets any of the requirements set forth above. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

You might also be able to cross-reference Hugo, but if we can't tell what the gun is from watching the film, then it's not like Tom Hanks or Martin Scorcese could either. Since Melies wasn't forward-thinking enough to film a making-of featurette, your caps are the only evidence we have, and seeing how the film doesn't seem to satisfy any of the four conditions above (and is a short film to boot,) it doesn't change my opinion (and Ben's) that this is not eligible. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 Sorry, your last edit on [[Maxim]] page is incorrect. You put in ''Maxim 1895'' section the movies where a ''Maxim MG08'' is seen. These movies are already listed in MG08 section. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 12:07, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
+:Sorry, my mistake. :(--[[User:Elzzupa|Elzzupa]] ([[User talk:Elzzupa|talk]]) 9:33, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
+== Adding Categories ==
+Did you consult with anyone before adding the category for Best Picture?  Before adding any more categories to the site, please consult with the admins first.   With the changes to the site and the sheer amount of categories already established, some of the pages are getting to the point where they are categorized too many different ways.  You should articulate reason on why such a new category should be added. If you have a suggestion for a new category, please ask first either on the [[Talk:Main Page|discussion]] page or you can make a new thread in the forums. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 17:41, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+==Director Category==
+If you're saying you want to remove the directors from the movie category, than that would be okay.  However, because the site is undergoing a major overhaul, a lot of the corrections you may want to make might be removed. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+: Aren't the directors already listed [[:Category:Director|here]]? Some users placed directors in the movie category due to the amount of films the director was involved with.  --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 18:31, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+::Cleanup of the actual pages is always good, but because there's going to be a lot of changes coming, I'm a little apprehensive about messing with the categories too much. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 18:49, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+:::Not only on the movie category page, but as new categories are added, the movie pages themselves become too cluttered at the bottom. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+== HD Images ==
+JPGs taken properly from HD sources such as Blu-ray or HD streaming will be significantly better looking than one taken from a commercial DVD.   There could be a resolution difference when one uses a screencapture program instead of using one built into a video player such as VLC. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 18:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
+: Take a look at the some of the screenshots from [[The Matrix]] page.   When you click one of the screenshots, you can see the difference in dimensions from a SD DVD screenshot (usually 858 x 377) and a full Blu-ray image (1920 x 726) when it's blown up to full screen.  --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 04:14, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+A larger .jpg image contains more "information" (the correct term would be data) than a smaller one, because the amount of data that was compressed originally is larger. It's nothing to do with the discs, increasing resolution increases the amount of pixels in a screencap and thus the amount of visible detail. The fact that .jpg is a lossy compression format has absolutely nothing to do with whether a 1920x1080 full HD image allows you to see more detail than an 854x480 SD cap does, please stop talking nonsense. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 04:51, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:Firstly, I would very much appreciate it if you did not break the screen borders of my talk page with images I'm quite capable of clicking on. Secondly, unless you somehow think we can put the DVD image directly onto the site (what would you like here, 3+ meg uncompressed bitmaps?) what you're saying is totally irrelevant because ''every single image on this site that abides by the rules is already a jpeg''. I don't know what you think showing me two different images is supposed to prove; we're talking about replacing existing SD jpeg images with HD-sized versions of ''the same images''. This is a net increase in quality, all things being equal, because both images are compressed in the same way. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+::Yeah, but we're talking about straight resolution here. A 1920x1080 HD cap has 2,073,600 pixels, an 854x480 SD image has 409,920. Five times more pixels with the same encoding settings means more detail is visible when the image is viewed at full size, which helps with identification. Since the BD image is actually HD sized, you don't have artifacts cased by upscaling which you would create by making a 1920x1080 version of an SD image (and also the new pixels are in the original image rather than just being interpolated by your image editor). Therefore, it is better.
+::Your image was rather obviously not encoded with the same quality settings as the ''Matrix'' image was (having checked, yours is 96 DPI and Ben's is 72), so it's not really a particularly useful comparison point. If I encode an SD resolution video at a very high bitrate and an HD video at a very low bitrate I can get the same result, but that hardly means if I encoded the HD video at the same bitrate as the SD one I wouldn't be able to see more detail. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 12:05, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:::Well, I'm afraid I don't see what you were initially objecting to. Kenny's examples were an original 853x364 72DPI image at 79.8 KB and a replacement 1920x800 300DPI image at 321 KB. I can't really see any argument for why the second image wouldn't be better quality than the first one since it is in every sense that can be measured. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 12:50, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+::::If I may offer a more direct comparison, I took both versions of this [[:File:TH_SW36_01.jpg|screenshot]] from both the DVD and the Blu-Ray, using the exact same settings in VLC and Fast Stone. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 12:59, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+Sorry to pile in on this as well, but am curious about your source as there is no way that the image you posted on Ben's talk page from Battle Cry can possibly have come from a normal DVD. DVD resolution is either 720x480 or 720x576 depending on whether it is NTSC or PAL, which will be anamorphically stretched for 16:9 video to give a maximum possible viewed resolution on a computer of something like 1024x576 on a computer (which is not a true resolution due to non square pixels unlike on HD sources which have square pixels). On a DVD, 2.4:1 video like Battle cry would be letterboxed, meaning that the maximum size should be 1024x426 or there abouts. This is quite a bit smaller than the 1353x566 that you have got, so either yours is upscaled (possibly unintentionally, depends on how you are capturing it) or from a source other than a normal DVD. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 12:56, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:::::Most DVDs I've encountered are no larger than 853x3xx (depending on aspect ratio.) I've never seen a DVD that produces images bigger than that. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 12:59, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+::::::I've screencapped dozens of films, using the disk whenever possible, and I've yet to come across a standard DVD bigger than 853 pixels across. I'm not ''wrong'' about my personal experience. I'm in the US however. Are you overseas? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 13:34, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+No, I don't owe you an apology, as nothing I said was wrong. I never called you a liar, all I said was that the resolution of the screencap that you said was from a DVD is impossible to obtain from a standard DVD unless it is being upscaled at some point. If you are using the screencap feature on VLC this could explain it, as depending on what video drivers you have, what version of VLC and what operating system you are using it on, it can be the case that VLC will just capture an image of the size the video is currently scaled to rather than the actual resolution of the source video. For example if you have the video full screened on the laptop, it could upscale it to the enlarged size rather than the actual size. I know that my old laptop does this, and if I want to get caps that aren't upscaled I need to do it windowed with the zoom set to 1x, and I thought this might be the case with this. If you look in the "Media Information" tab in VLC, what does it state that the resolution of the DVD is?  --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:44, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:::::::"Impossible?" And yet, there it is. My copy of ''[[Battle Cry]]'' was not only a standard DVD but a used DVD at that. Your claims about what is and what is not possible are a bit incredible at this point, in my humble opinion. --[[User:Elzzupa|Elzzupa]] ([[User talk:Elzzupa|talk]]) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (PDT)
+:Before you you write anything  else I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote, as you seem to be inferring something that isn't there. All I said is the following (and if you scroll up a couple of posts you can see for yourself): Firstly the only reason I ask is because I am curious about the source, not to start a witch hunt. Secondly, to me it doesn't seem possible that the screenshot is from a normal PAL/NTSC DVD that hasn't been upscaled (which I even said could very well have been unintentional dependent on the capturing method, and as i explained later this can happen with VLC), as the resolution is too large based on both personal experience with NTSC and PAL video, and from the maths of what the source resolution should be. Thirdly, this means that your images have either been upscaled at some point or are not from a normal DVD, such as a foreign DVD with a different resolution. I am not calling you a liar, I genuinely want to know how you got an image with this resolution as the size doesn't make sense, and others agree. When that DVD plays on VLC with no cropping is it letterboxed, and what does VLC say the media resolution is?  --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 14:10, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+Hey, here's an idea: step back from the PC and calm down. Commando never accused you of lying, he's saying you're mistaken. Lying implies that you know you're not telling the truth. He's correct in what he's saying, it's impossible to get a non-upscaled image of those dimensions from a standard DVD. The image on the disc is simply not that big. He is not backtracking, he is ''explaining'' what he meant because you misunderstood him. If you continue being so aggressive towards people trying to address you civilly, you will be the one getting a time out here. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 14:00, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+Okay, now we have the facts. We were not aware you were simply using Print Screen, which would create an image based on your screen resolution. Now that we know, that all makes sense. If you were to try capping your DVD via VLC like we assumed you were, you would see that the resolution is much lower. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:Yes, you used print screen, which means you were taking screenshots of video which was being upscaled by your video player to fit whatever window size you had it set to.  You could do the same by setting, say, a 480p Youtube video to fullscreen and using print screen on that, but that wouldn't change that the source video is not actually the same size as your screenshot.
+:The point with that is that the extra pixels in your image are not part of the source video, they're interpolations created by whatever you were using to play the video. If you take that player and set the video to 100% (or the equivalent setting) instead of fit to window, you'll see the actual size of the video on the disc itself. This is what Commando is talking about; he's saying either you used a non-standard video source which actually was that size (which you weren't), or your screenshots are upscaled from the original resolution (which as it turns out they are). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+==Screencapture==
+I have used several computers from desktops to laptops to capture screenshots.  It's not really the monitor that matters unless you are using Fast Stone Image Viewer to capture screenshots.  If you are using VLC player, the screencapture will be of the original resolution of the source being played.  I have said this before, I capture the image first as a PNG file, because the JPG capture doesn't capture as much detail.  Then I convert to JPG using Fast Stone before uploading.  When you do it this way, you don't lose as much detail in your image. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+: If VLC will not work for you, try to use the software provided with your Blu-ray drive to play back the film and then use Fast Stone Image Viewer to capture the full frame of the screen (instead of Print Screen) and then crop off everything except the screen.   If you have purchased the Blu-ray, you can try making a local copy and then use VLC. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
+== Screenshot Comparison ==
+It's not fair to compare two images from two completely different films and completely different film transfers to make an argument about the amount of data in an image.   So, here's a comparison of two images from the same film from two different sources:
+Here's the shot of [[Body Heat]] from your (I suppose DVD) source at (the dimensions are 600x337) shown at 900px:
+[[File:Edmund6sm.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+Here's the shot of [[Body Heat]] from my Blu-ray (the dimensions are 1920x1080) shown at 900px :
+[[File:BodyH 08.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+Now I understand that both of these images were brightened afterwards, but there's still a little bit of difference in size and the detail of the image (even more when the image is double-clicked). --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+:When I posted that image, I was under the impression that we were supposed to size down the file.
+:Here is a brightness/contrast corrected image of my original DVD screenshot:
+[[Image:edmond6_corrected2.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+:Here is my original screenshot, without color or contrast correction.
+[[Image:edmond6.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+:Here is the same image, color and contrast corrected:
+[[Image:edmond6_corrected.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+--[[User:Elzzupa|Elzzupa]] ([[User talk:Elzzupa|talk]]) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (PDT)
+: When you contrast-corrected the image, notice the box-like squares on the left?  That's because there's not that many pixels in the image.  Since the blu-ray image has over 4 times the amount of pixels in the screenshot, the corrected image doesn't have that kind of problem. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
+You can see that your corrected image is very blocky compared to the blu-ray image. This is because your video player or image editor is using a method called interpolation to increase the size; basically, it generates extra pixels by looking at the pixels around them for what colour they should be and averaging it for the new ones. This can work for smaller cases of upscaling, but at large scales you get the effect seen here. With an original HD image it doesn't have to do that because the real pixels are already there. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
+Let me give you and example:
+This is an upscaled version of the 600x338 thumbnail of one of my images for ''Binary Domain'', done in Photoshop.
+[[Image:BinaryDomain-ACR-1-Upscale.jpg|thumb|none|901px]]
+This is the original HD image
+[[Image:BinaryDomain-ACR-1.jpg|thumb|none|900px]]
+You'll notice the colours are less sharp and less true in the upscaled version, and if you click them and show them full size the upscaled one has a lot of blurring and artifacting from Photoshop effectively guessing what should be going on (you can see this in the text at the bottom even at this size). This is the quality difference we've been talking about. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
+== Just to say ==
+In all that unpleasantness before you might have got the wrong idea. You do a good job, and we're glad to have you on board. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 05:07, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
+== Make Sure your entries are eligible ==
+Please make sure that you can at least specifically identify one of the weapons listed in the page you create.  Simply adding "moon gun" and "rifle" is not acceptable.
+As stated in the [[Rules, Standards and Principles]]:
+The page must have enough firearms to merit inclusion into the database, thus the page must have more than ONE real firearm in it to qualify. There are some important exceptions to this rule:
+) the firearm is identifiable, well seen and important to the story. A film where 'some character' wields an 'unknown revolver' means nothing.
+) it has enough screen time for any viewer to wonder what make or model it is. .
+) it must drive the plot forward and not be an 'incidental' prop (like something hanging on the wall in the background).
+(a) If it is in the background, it must be 'interesting enough' to merit someone asking the question 'what is that?' Thus if it has enough screen time and it is identifiable, it qualifies. If it is a random 'set dressing' or a 'shape' held by a extra, then it does not qualify.
+) the single firearm rule only applies if the firearm is real. If it is an obvious toy or airsoft gun, then it does not qualify. Having a lone character wave around an 'orange plug' airsoft toy does not merit a page. If the film is filled with various replica or high quality airsoft weapons than can fool the casual viewer, then it qualifies, if only to shine light upon the fact that the guns are fakes.
+--[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
+== A Trip to the Moon ==
+It's hardly a definitive ID. All I can tell is that it's a rifle and there's a bolt handle. They're either theater prop mockups or something Melies fabricated himself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 18:24, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
+:I'm not sure it meets any of the requirements set forth above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
+::You might also be able to cross-reference ''Hugo'', but if we can't tell what the gun is from watching the film, then it's not like Tom Hanks or Martin Scorcese could either. Since Melies wasn't forward-thinking enough to film a making-of featurette, your caps are the only evidence we have, and seeing how the film doesn't seem to satisfy any of the four conditions above (and is a short film to boot,) it doesn't change my opinion (and Ben's) that this is not eligible. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Elzzupa: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 00:19, 24 May 2013

Contents

Welcome to IMFDB

Screenshots

Replacing files

Making Pages

Out of the Past

Making Pages, Part 2

Lever Action Rifles and revolvers

Heroes for Sale

Uploading a new screenshot

20K under the sea

Silence of the Lambs

Smith & Wesson Models

Steel Helmet

The Big Trail

Darby's Rangers

the Spook "the most influential African American motion pictures in U.S. history?"

Ivan Dixon and Director Category

Edits on Maxim page

Adding Categories

Director Category

HD Images

Screencapture

Screenshot Comparison

Just to say

Make Sure your entries are eligible

A Trip to the Moon

Navigation menu