FORUMS: list search recent posts

How to optimize your FCPX experience

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 12:27:01 pm

A frequent theme here seems to be that some folks are having a great experience and others find X to be laggy and less than a pleasant experience. I've had both, so I wonder, what are the specifics that make one job go well and others not so well? And it doesn't seem to be a case of new gear versus old gear. So here are my thoughts and what I perceive as pain points.

Media - even though lots of formats are supposedly optimized, I get the best experience with ProRes. I do not get as good of an experience with XDCAM media rewrapped as MOV nor with H264. I get decent performance with RED One 4K and poor performance with RED Epic 5K.

Connected titles and generators - these seem to cause me more grief. If I drag a TC generator across a long timeline, the UI crawls, especially when I have a lot of other connected clips in place.

So, thoughts? What is your perception?

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 12:34:16 pm

I've had stellar workflow mainly with RED 4K DCI formats.
Mostly shot with my Scarlet and some with EPIC/DRAGON.
2 features a slew of shorts/music videos on a Mac Pro 2012 w/ROCKET card and now a nMP (no ROCKET required).
I am using both 10.4 on the Mac Pro and latest in nMP.
Combinations of SAS cards, Decklinks and GTECH drives helps with my workflow.
I do get the same results with Avid, Pro Tools, Premiere and sometimes Resolve.
In the end I love FCPX and RED files.
Way less tinkering when moving projects around.
I have to deal with numerous Directors that edit their own masterpiece.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 5:58:39 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 15, 2015 at 6:04:27 pm

Oliver, I think your analysts is spot on. Some editors fly with X, some crawl. Worse yet, the cause of the difference is often far from intuitive. A good example is my exchange this week with Mike Warmels in the "little things" thread. He was doing things in a perfectly reasonable way - on older, but spec capable hardware - and beach-balling his life away. The same thing had happened to me on a critical week long edit months ago, but I'd gotten help to figure out the issue and solve it and it went from horrible problem to "no big deal" overnight. The thing is I've been editing for nearly 30 years and I've been in that exact same place more than a few times. Something is a huge problem for editors with a particular configuration or workflow - then suddenly someone figures it out - the word gets passed along - and the problem largely goes away. The only difference is that instead of the solutions arriving on phone calls from an editing peer - now they are hashed out in public where everyone watches and the participants with a point of view (looking in the mirror here) use any glitch to buttress their preconceptions about the worth of the whole approach. Basically, I think it's gonna take a decade or so for the new workflow era to fully sink in. The one where software is ALWAYS in progress. Where we go from HD to 2k to 4k to 5k to 8k in a few years - rather than 1inch to Beta SP in a decade or two. This is also why connection with a community is so critical in this era. I still play here (despite the slings and arrows) but the noise level is still VERY high here. Likely because it's not a solutions board, it's a debate board. Still I easily learn 10 times more about how X actually works In other places where people have long since stopped the bickering and just use it. They don't just bitch about the problems - they solve them. The "techniques" forum here is certainly useful - but the overall Cow brand is still seen out in the wild as Adobe friendly and X hostile. (Maybe it's all the CC ads?) So many knowledgable X editors have simply moved elsewhere - for better or worse. FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 9:20:46 pm

[Bill Davis] " but the overall Cow brand is still seen out in the wild as Adobe friendly and X hostile."

I guess they all left before the CC or Not forum was created? ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 11:07:14 pm

I check that too. First, the branding there has never been Adobe Premiere Pro or Not, the Debate. So it's not the same discussion at all. Second, we were arguing here for a long time before that came along. As a forum, it's always been a very much less active - tho I think it's fair to say the the passions against Creative Cloud in that forum are at least as strong as any here against X. I don't subscribe to or use Premiere - so I don't participate in that discussion.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:02:23 am

[Bill Davis] "First, the branding there has never been Adobe Premiere Pro or Not, the Debate. So it's not the same discussion at all."

One would think that but a lot of the hatred bleeds over into anything Adobe (the software is shoddy, the subscribers are idiots, etc.,). Occasionally there is the obligatory "the product teams do great work, I'm just mad at senior management" comment yet the apps (especially AE for some reason) get raked over the coals on a regular basis. Not to mention the multiple discussions about software alternatives so you don't have to give evil Adobe your money. It's nearly like no good word will be uttered until the return of the perpetual license.

IMO, the X or Not forum has mellowed with age (as the program and user base have grown) where as the the CC or Not forum has the same level of vitriol today as it did 2yrs ago because the situation is exactly the same.

Anyway... long story short I'm surprised anyone would rank the COW (the entirety of the COW) as pro this brand or anti that brand when there are forums for pretty much every brand. Maybe those X guys you mention should take another look at the COW instead of basing their opinions on a years old, outdated version of the COW. ;)


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:11:18 am

[Andrew Kimery] "IMO, the X or Not forum has mellowed with age (as the program and user base have grown) where as the the CC or Not forum has the same level of vitriol today as it did 2yrs ago because the situation is exactly the same."

FCP X or Not was a reaction to a change in the editing methodology. Adobe or Not was a reaction to the change in the business model. Different pain points and therefore different focus for each forum.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:22:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "FCP X or Not was a reaction to a change in the editing methodology. Adobe or Not was a reaction to the change in the business model. Different pain points and therefore different focus for each forum."

Different pain points (though as I said there is a lot of slamming of Adobe's app, not just the business model) but I still think it's far fetched to paint the entire COW as Pro-Adobe and Anti-X. I mean, they each have their own 'complaint forum' (and I'd say the Adobe one is more venomous than the X one), unless, as Bill implied, that those people haven't been to the COW in a number of years (and presumably didn't frequent the Techniques forum).

Also, apologies for sidetracking an otherwise very useful thread, Oliver.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 9:31:07 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe those X guys you mention should take another look at the COW instead of basing their opinions on a years old, outdated version of the COW. "

Tried that. When I got to know Thomas Carter of Honda the Other Side fame (A singular editing achievement that broke new ground and swept every major editing award in the UK), I invited him to stop by to discuss his use of X to cut that work. Afterwords that I got a very polite, very Brittish "no thanks" as to further participation here. Too bad too, cuz he still shares stories with us X guys on other boards about his work cutting stuff like the new Android spots now running globally. Who wants to attend a party where people constantly diss ones choice of tools? Few I know. Imagine showing up to talk editing and stumbling on an ill-timed Aindreas rant about what a waste of effort X represents for the entire editing universe? That alone is likely enough to send someone who's regularly cutting multi-million dollar level work on it - heading for the door fast. Just sayin'

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 5:39:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "Tried that."

I was thinking more of in the Techniques forum, not either of the Debate forums. I assume the X Techniques forum is the same as the Avid, PPro, Resolve, etc., forums where questions are asked and answers are shared.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:04:03 am

[Bill Davis] "Oliver, I think your analysts is spot on. Some editors fly with X, some crawl. Worse yet, the cause of the difference is often far from intuitive. A good example is my exchange this week with Mike Warmels in the "little things" thread. He was doing things in a perfectly reasonable way - on older, but spec capable hardware - and beach-balling his life away."

Yes, I saw that one. Definitely a weird one.

[Bill Davis] " I still play here (despite the slings and arrows) but the noise level is still VERY high here. Likely because it's not a solutions board, it's a debate board."

Correct. It's a debate forum that's pretty freewheeling.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 11:23:09 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Sep 16, 2015 at 11:42:20 am

The thing was: with FCP7 it play or it didn't play. Or it crashed.

With FCPX, it can try to play, it can give you beach balls, and sometimes it can crash. It's in that way a lot less predictable, performance wise.
Of course the program is doing so much (thumbnails, an updating inspector, waveforms, ...)
That being said, I cannot stress how little I see of this on modern computers with 10.2. I don't do work with 50 audio tracks though, but I do work with some fairly long timelines sometimes, with 6 to 10 clips playing, and all of them having pretty heavy effects.

The difference between FCP7 and FCPX seems to be that in my experience, the USER INTERFACE of 7 never really slowed down (if it didn't crash).
In X, the user interface itself can sometimes slow down, which can make the app feel slower.


Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 6:28:56 pm

I used to have pretty bad performance with XDCAM also. I must say it seems better now. Maybe because of the underlying technology that they bought with MXF?
Even rewrapped XDCAM MOV seems to work pretty well. That being said, I mostly work with Prores LT in FCPX. Then, performance can be great.
A clip with color correction on it (even 4 layers of it) seems to export in the same speed as one without adjustments. Really impressive.

For the few times I worked with H.264 performance seemed very good too. Even the exporting to Prores went very fast.

Closing the Inspector is sometimes a wise choise.
And when working with a lot of effects, I like to just put on the smallest view in the timeline, without thumbnails. I don't know if that does a lot, but I would guess so.

Performance and waveforms have been pretty reliable and fast for me since 10.2. Even on shared storage. If you have a decent switch, because we used to have a couple of computers on an old switch, and we got really bad performance if 2 computers got on the same network. That was something that wasn't FCPX fault though, because it was the same in the Finder, doing copy operations.
To be honest, I can't remember having beach balls since 10.2, which in complex edits with a lot of graphical effects, I used to have much more.

And I still have the feeling FCPX likes relatively new computers. An SSD on your working system, and fast storage seems to do the most in my opinion.

I've had good experience with RED RAW 4K, even on a Macbook air with a small USB3 drive. no complex edit in that case though.
I've had good experience working in 4K, even on a 2012 Retina Macbook Pro. Fast storage, though.
No experience in 5K.

That's pretty much


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 7:54:50 pm

I seem to have a devil of a time with shares and renders in FCPX. I have 120-minute long pro res files I import from a KiPro, and all I need to do is burn them to Blu Ray and Standard Def DVD, but the share/exports to Blue Ray take for EVER, if they complete at all - they often hang at around 68 percent complete. Then I gotta clear out a bunch of files, empty trash and make more room,to try again, and knowing if it will complete takes a half day to find out. I must be missing a trick somewhere, but I'm falling way behind, by days, on processing these simple dubs, and will accept any help.


Return to posts index

nick ring
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 1:25:06 am

Are you having the problem just with Blu-ray or with DVDs as well? Does it happen both when burning a disc and when saving an image file?

The 68% issue is a flag. Googling this issues suggests that a number of other people encounter problems around that point as well. Apple has a support document pointing out that time. I also found a thread from a couple of years ago on FCP.co that mentions that time as well. The last comment in that thread notes:
The 66% part sounds like the handoff to the embedded app, Create Disk was fumbled.

I had thought the most recent FCP X update was supposed to have addressed a number of Blu Ray encoding and disk creation problems. Have you updated to 10,1,3 yet?

From other forums, I recall that many users with problems were those who had long videos. If you have updated and it still doesn't work, see if you can get a short section to encode and burn. (To save the expense of a test disk, I'd save it to hard drive to make a disk image.)

Not sure if that helps any, but perhaps points in some direction.


Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 2:06:18 am

Nick: just BluRay, DVD seems to work fine, but I think you may be onto something with the "create disk hand-off" idea. So as to not interfere with the rest of the thread, I'll take this issue over to the techniques forum tomorrow instead, but thanks for the ideas.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 15, 2015 at 8:36:12 pm

I think one trend I see is that an i7 is better than a nMP in terms of playback performance if you're using h264 based material. On a late 2012 i7 iMac I find no benefit in transcoding to ProRes. Except a lot of time and drive space wasted. Exports to h264 are ridiculously fast as well. But that's all from the h264 acceleration that the i7 (i5 too?). MacPros, new or old, seem to really want the media to be ProRes. Oranges to oranges, I'd assume a nMP would play back way more layers of ProRes at once than an i7 iMac.

I still get laggy experience no matter what codecs I'm using, optimized or not. But it seems to be more a function of how many motion templates or layers of title fx or generators I'm using. Sometimes just having a very complex motion template in the sequence, even if it's rendered, seems to bog things down, as if X has to treat it as unrendered even though it's rendered. It has to check and make sure all the resources are there just in case it comes unrendered or something. Have a couple copies of something like that in your sequence, or a few complicated compounds and the beach ball comes out or every function starts to take 5 seconds instead of being instantaneous.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:06:01 am

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "I've had good experience working in 4K, even on a 2012 Retina Macbook Pro. Fast storage, though.
No experience in 5K. "


What I'm seeing right now, when comparing FCP X and PProCC2015, is that the 4K REDCODE media performs about the same, while 5K EPIC is better on PProCC.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 6:02:24 am

[Oliver Peters] "while 5K EPIC is better on PProCC."

I can never remember my Mercury from my CL or my GL or whatever when it comes to graphics, but...

Don't properly optimized PPro systems use a different kind of graphics card from a Mac? Can CC2014 or 2015 now use the GPU for playback decoding? And would any of this make a difference? Also, is your 5k on PPro experience with full or 1/2 or 1/4 playback resolution?

I had no luck with R3D 5k files on my MacBook Pro Retina - had to use the FCPX generated proxies, which worked great (roughly equivalent to 2.5k files, if I understand the proxy workflow correctly). My MacPro trashcan with D700s and a ton o' ram handles the 5k files pretty well. Given the huge increase in data going from 4k to 5k, I'm not at all surprised the laptop just couldn't handle the decoding & debayering in real time.

As a point of comparison, I wonder how Avid 8.4, with its new abilities to handle large frame sizes, handles 5k (if at all). My understanding is that the realtime proxy generation for playback requires a new and beefy computer to even hope to make this work. Would make an interesting comparison to PPro.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 2:34:19 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "Don't properly optimized PPro systems use a different kind of graphics card from a Mac?"

Depends on the card you have. Most NVIDIA/PNY cards are CUDA accelerated, whereas ATI/AMD/Radeon cards would be OpenCL. FCP X can only take advantage of OpenCL and/or OpenGL acceleration. In Premiere, you can set your preferences to match the card or to use software emulation. In the case on my comparison, this was on a Mac Pro tower with a Sapphire 7950 card, so Premiere was set to OpenCL hardware acceleration. Therefore, FCP X and Premiere should, in theory, be making equal use of GPU acceleration.

[Jeff Markgraf] "Also, is your 5k on PPro experience with full or 1/2 or 1/4 playback resolution? "

Half.

[Jeff Markgraf] "As a point of comparison, I wonder how Avid 8.4, with its new abilities to handle large frame sizes, handles 5k (if at all)."

I can test that and get back later.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 3:01:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Jeff Markgraf] "As a point of comparison, I wonder how Avid 8.4, with its new abilities to handle large frame sizes, handles 5k (if at all)."
I can test that and get back later."


OK, I tested - all at 1/2 res (or best performance). PProCC2015 is very smooth. FCP X is moderate but stutters and drops frames. MC is worse than X. Plus, I can add Lumetri color correction to PPro and it's still smooth, while performance drops with X when using the color board.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 18, 2015 at 6:23:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "OK, I tested - all at 1/2 res (or best performance)"

Just to clarify - is FCPX "best performance" in fact 1/2 res? As I understand it, proxy is 1/2 res. Which suggests that best performance is something higher.

Not trying to make excuses for X. But 5k on my MacPro is mostly fine at best performance (occasional stutter on complex motion) and smooth as can be at proxy.

I don't doubt Premiere handles various formats pretty well. But I often seem to see/hear about users defaulting to 1/2 res playback. Which seems like a bit of a cheat, compared to full res playback.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 18, 2015 at 12:21:08 pm

"Just to clarify - is FCPX "best performance" in fact 1/2 res?  As I understand it, proxy is 1/2 res.  Which suggests that best performance is something higher.  "

FCP X Proxy files are ProRes Proxy at 1/4 frame size (1/2 width and height). When I'm talking about resolution, I mean sharpness or pixel resolution. As I understand it "best performance" is a dynamic, adaptive method of dropping the display resolution to the viewer and any output. Adobe and Avid use fixed increments. In all cases, the frame size is still full frame size, whereas with FCP X Proxy, it's actually new media that is created at the smaller size.

In the case of RED media, there's also the debayer quality setting. I believe FCP X goes by the System Pref setting. If set to Auto, then I think 4K files in a 1080 timeline are 1/2 resolution debayered. Avid let's you dial that in more precisely. I think Adobe also uses the System Pref setting, but I'm not completely sure.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 4:50:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Connected titles and generators - these seem to cause me more grief"

A big yes from me on this also. Titles seem to slow it down a bit for me and when I got to the closing credits it really got slow.

I don't know if anyone has done a long credit roll but I'd like to know how that went for you.

(I'm on a cheese grader though)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 5:27:38 pm

[Tony West] "I don't know if anyone has done a long credit roll but I'd like to know how that went for you."

I've tried a number of times using both the built-in tools and plug-ins. Always a failure or a complete PITA. If I want properly formatted, movie-style, rolling credits, I build one long Photoshop document, create the roll in After Effects and render. Then I bring that media into FCP X. Works like a champ every time.

If the credits aren't rolling (which is usually better IMHO) then I'll do it with the normal titling tools. On the last film where I did this (cut on FCP7) I built all the static cards in Motion and exported still graphics. Motion gave me far better control over different groups of text within a single page, like music credit blocks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 6:16:07 pm

On another note, how does everyone here feel about how FCP X handles "sizzle reel" edits? You know, the kind with a a bazillion edits in a couple of minutes. I tried that with my colorist demo, where clips aren't that super short, and X still completely choked. Even though everything was ProRes, it simply couldn't consistently play through the timeline and give me any sense of rhythm with that many shots in such a short timeframe. I had to bail and finish it in Premiere. This was before 10.2, but I haven't revisited it.

Yesterday I was making revisions to a client company's demo reel at their place. I didn't do the original edit, but this had an extreme amount of shots - a number of sections with "fluttercuts" where clips were 2-4 frames long. In general, during the 2 1/2 minute piece, probably no single clip was longer than 1 sec. This was cut and revised in Premiere.

I would shudder to try that sort of edit in X, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 8:58:28 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would shudder to try that sort of edit in X, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?"

I've noticed this too..

Cant keep up with a flurry of 2-5 frame cuts- alot of frames are skipped. Same edit in MC plays back as expected.

This is with prores 422 raw footage that was optimized upon ingest.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 18, 2015 at 6:40:55 am

[Oliver Peters] "I would shudder to try that sort of edit in X, but maybe I'm wrong."

I've done a number of those kinds of pieces during the past year or so, all on X. No problems. This was on a MacBook Pro Retina, with external 27" monitor (via HDMI), USB3 drives and a T-Tap driving a FS broadcast monitor.

I've also done several sales/sizzle reels with multiple sections of multi-layer compound clips. As in video with transitions inside an iPad, with a reflection, all inside a comp with a couple of other tablets/phones that fly around, inside another comp to move the group as a while over a looped background. Plus one or more layers of titles and/or keyable graphics. Don't forget multiple layers of music, sfx and SOTs. Oh yeah, with a couple of short flutter cut montages. Footage was a combination of ProRes 422 and MXF (Avid DnXHD 145) files.

Needless to say, after two layers of comps, it was time to render. But those two comps contained 3 or 4 layers with motion, soft edges, gradients and various levels of opacity before having to render. Again, on the MacBook Pro. I would love to have had the MacPro trashcan for these pieces, but it came later.

I remain shocked at the different experiences people are having with X. I wish I understood the cause of such variability.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 21, 2015 at 7:48:17 pm

I cut my demo reel (with tons of quick 5 frame edits) on an old 2009 Mac Pro using FCP X. Only time I had any problems was when I initially was being stupid and hadn't transferred the footage over to my work RAID and was editing from a USB 2 external drive. Once I noticed the stuttering problems and dragged the footage over to my RAID , it worked just fine. I actually think the magnetic timeline (which I am NOT a big fan of in general) is perfect for editing to quick beats. Of course this was with AVCHD footage from a FS700 and I have done a lot of upgrades to my 2009 Mac Pro (CPU upgrade from single Quad 2.66ghz to single Hex 3.46ghz and GPU upgrade from GT120(512MB) to GTX 980 Ti (6GB). This was using newest FCPX on Yosemite.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: How to optimize your FCPX experience
on Sep 16, 2015 at 8:13:17 pm

Good info Oliver, thanks


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]