Saturday , October 1 2022

An improvement, but still behind the curve



[ad_1]

In the current smartphone technology state, which defines the old 2014 phablet as the new baseline size for most Android phones, Pixel 3 is still one of the last choices for a modern compact flagship smartphone 2018 – and one of the last without chopping . The same thing was true for last year's Pixel 2. However, the handset was regularly obsessed with its obsolete appearance, garnished with thicker features than most smartphones 2017, especially when compared to similar to the iPhone X, Galaxy S8 / Galaxy Note 8, or even its Big Brother Pixel 2 XL. This year, Pixel 3 assumes a nicer form factor, as Google is shooting its Pixel line to take into account respect as a premium-looking-and-feel top flagship competitor and much starts with the portal to how we interact with it – the screen.

So how did Google do this time?

Good

  • Perfect color accuracy in typical indoor lighting
  • Low uniform angular displacements
  • Very wide built-in gamut
  • Closer screen framing and lower screen reflection and glare
  • UHDA HDR certification

Bad

  • Unimpressive peak brightness and control
  • High threshold for black mowing
  • Solid color grains easily visible at lower brightness
  • Smaller power display

pixel 3 display analysis

performance Overview

This time, Google provides the source of its smaller Pixel 3 from LG Display, while Samsung Display produces it for the XL variant – a flip flop from last year. In a moment, the front design looks like a mined version of Pixel 2 XL minus the 3D curved edges, which I'm happy is gone. The front is now flat and elegant, with a modern 18: 9 screen ratio, significantly reduced top, bottom and side strokes, and even some hip rounded corners. Pixel 3's body is approximately as big as the Pixel 2 while it fits in a longer 5.5-inch screen, which has approximately the same screen width as Pixel 2 but an added half-hour long-range screen properties. However, the length of this extra screen can make Pixel 3 more difficult to use than Pixel 2, especially when it reaches the status bar.

The Pixel 3 screen has an almost identical pixel density to Pixel 2's, with 443 pixels per inch compared to Pixel 2's 441. At this pixel density, the display looks completely sharp over 11.0 inches (27.9 cm) for users with 20/20 vision, which is good because the typical smartphone viewing distance is just over 12 inches (30.5 cm). The image structure, or the achromatic image, will remain completely sharp down to about 7.8 inches (20 cm) for users with 20/20 vision. However, color cuts can be obvious when the phone is used closer than 11 inches, and it is because the screen uses a PenTile Diamond Pixel array. Those with higher visual acuity, which is quite common, may be more sensitive to color fringing. Mostly, the Pixel 3 display is viewed at an acceptable screen density, just on the verge of excellent sharpness.

The quality of production on the screen of our Pixel 3 device is excellent at typical brightness. At the first inspection, I also noticed that the screen has noticeably less reflection and glare, and the display is now laminated closer to the top glass than Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL, which later had an abnormally hollow sensing glass. Closer to the lamination, the screen will appear much more "inky", as if the screen content was plastered or a sticker was placed on the front of the glass. The solid color grain problem that plagued the LGD panels on Pixel 2 XL has improved dramatically, but it is still a bit visible when looking for it at lower brightness. The color shift of the screen, when seen at an angle, has also improved considerably. The shift in color is much more subtle and uniform, especially compared to most Pixel 2 XL devices last year. It took me five replacements to get an outstanding Pixel 2 XL device with very little color change. The display does not display a color shadow rainbow at different angles like Samsung panels, just a uniform shift to cyan without any steep greens or magenta flashes here and there. When measuring the color change, Pixel 3 tested for lower color shifts than Pixel 2, but slightly higher brightness varying. The opposite was true when tested against our unicorn Pixel 2 XL: lower brightness, but a bit higher color change for Pixel 3. Note that our Pixel 2 XL device may be an anomaly – most Pixel 2 XL devices I tested had significantly higher color shifts . Show uniformity on our device is also excellent, but small flaws begin to be visible at very low brightness. However, I have noticed that users who claim abnormally poor screen shapes, color grains and / or poor viewing angles, so it still seems like there is a lottery to get an ideal display.

For Pixel 3 color profiles, Google now reduced the default value to a wide pixel 3 color extension profile, instead of a precise default profile that they did for Pixel 2. The Pixel 3 customizable profile extends the colors to the panel's built-in spectrum, which is a very big scope. The colors are intensively saturated and screen contrast increases significantly. The natural color profile is the exact color profile, and we measured the calibration to the starting colors that are inseparable from perfect in typical office lighting. However, viewing gamma is a bit too high on Pixel 3, but not as high as on Pixel 2 XL. This means that while the images are correct, the screen will have more contrast than standard. The enhanced color profile resembles the natural color profile, but with a slight increase in color saturation. It stays accurate, and it can be a more accurate profile in outdoor lighting because the color of a monitor wipes out with intense lighting.

However, in outdoor lighting, Pixel 3 is not very competitive. Even after 2017 standards, Google Pixel 3 does not get very bright. We measured the display to peak at 476 light levels for the average case (50% APL) while they mostly range around 435 nits in apps with a white background. While the phone can still be used in direct sunlight, it's almost as easy to use as lighter screens, such as newer iPhone or Galaxy devices, which can easily provide about 700 nits for white background content, which appears about 25% lighter than Pixel 3.

Display Analysis Methodology

In order to obtain quantitative color data from the display, we set device-specific input patterns for the handset and measure the image's resulting emissions using an i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer. The test patterns and device settings are corrected for different display properties and possible software updates that can change our desired measurements. Many other page analyzes do not correctly show them and consequently their data may be incorrect.

We measure the full gray scale of the image and report the perceptual color error in white, along with its correlated color temperature. From the readings, we also deduce display gamma using the least squares fit the theoretical gamma values ​​for each step. This gamma value is more meaningful and true to experience than those who report gamma reading from the CalMan screen calibration program, which on average means the theoretical gamma for each step.

The colors we target to our test patterns are affected by DisplayMate's absolute color logs. The color targets are spaced approximately evenly through the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale, making them excellent targets for assessing the full color rendering capability of a display.

Grayscale and color accuracy readings are incremented 20% over the perceptual (nonlinear) brightness of the monitor and, on average, to achieve a single reading that is correct over the overall appearance of the display. Another individual reading is taken at our 200 cd / m² reference which is a good white level for typical office conditions and indoor lighting.

We mainly use the color difference measurement CIEDE2000 (abbreviated to AE) as a metric for chromatic accuracy. AE is the industry standard color difference measure proposed by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) that best describes uniform differences between colors. Other color difference measurements are also available, such as color difference Δu & # 39; v & # 39; on the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale, but such measurement values ​​have been found to be worse in perceptual uniformity in assessing visual brandability, since the threshold for visual perceptibility between measured colors and target colors may vary between color difference measurement values. For example, a color difference Δu & # 39; v & # 39; of 0.010 is not visibly noticeable for blue, but the same measured color difference for yellow is noticeable at a glance. Record it AE is not perfect itself, but it has become the most empirically accurate color difference measure currently available.

AE Normally, the luminance error is considered, since luminance is a necessary component to fully describe color. However, since the human visual system interprets chromaticity and luminance separately, we hold our test patterns with a constant luminance and compensate for the luminance error of ours AE values. Furthermore, it is helpful to distinguish the two errors in assessing the display performance because, like our visual system, it relates to various problems with the display. In this way we can analyze and understand its performance more carefully.

When the measured color difference AE is above 3.0, the color difference can be visually seen at a glance. When the measured color difference AE is between 1.0 and 2.3, the difference in color can only be detected in diagnostic conditions (for example, when the measured color and target color appear next to the other on the screen being measured), otherwise the color difference will not be visible and displayed accurately. A measured color difference AE of 1.0 or less is said to be completely unnoticed and the measured color appears inseparable from the target color even when it is adjacent to it.

The display's power consumption is measured by the slope of the linear regression between the handset's battery power and the screen brightness. The battery drains are observed and calculated for three minutes with 20% step brightness and tested several times while minimizing external sources of battery.

Brightness of the screen

Our comparison charts compares the maximum display brightness of Pixel 3 relative to other screens we've measured. The marks on the horizontal axis at the bottom of the chart represent the multipliers of the difference in perceived brightness relative to the Pixel 3 display, which is fixed to "1 ×." The size of the screen brightness, measured in chandeliers per square meter or nits, is logarithmically scaled according to Stevens Power Law using the modality exponent for the perceived brightness of a point source, proportional to the brightness of the Pixel 3 screen. This is done because the human eye has a logarithmic response to perceived brightness. Other charts that show brightness values ​​in linear scale do not correctly represent the difference in perceived brightness on the displays.

Pixel 3 works in the same way as most of its predecessors. The display sweeps about 450 nits for most apps content and can provide up to 572 nits at a low 1% APL. The screen brightness did not appear to be a priority for Google as they continue to fall in the final spot in flagship brightness brightness each year. There is no sign of high brightness in Pixel 3 sysfs, which is likely to be found on devices with Samsung DDICs while Pixel 3 uses LGD technology. LGD's latest OLED on the LG V40, however, supports high brightness, and if the Pixel 3 monitor uses the same imaging technology, it should theoretically be able to handle high brightness.

For Android Pie, Google implemented a new logarithmic brightness. This is an improvement of pre-pie, where the Android screen brightness adjusted the screen brightness linearly. People perceive the subjective intensity of brightness on a logarithmic scale, not on a linear scale, so that the old brightness did not adjust the brightness of the screen in a perceptually even way. Attempting to adjust the slider at night can give a setting that is too dark, but move the slider one inch to the right and the screen now breaks your eyes. Ideally, the slider should feel intuitive. Halfway in the slider should look half as bright as the maximum brightness. But I found that this was not the case, so I tested Google's new brightness mapping.

My first finding was that Google only changed how the slider selects the byte value that controls the screen brightness and I uploaded a Reddit comment about it several months ago. The byte value mapping actually remained linear, while the new brightness controller selects byte values ​​in a logarithmic manner.

This is bad.

While Google showed a certain understanding of the human sentiment for a moment, they showed that they did not. People are much more sensitive to changes in lower brightness, and they already recognized it in their blog posts. This means that there should be a lot more byte values ​​that map to dim brightness. Nevertheless, the display brightness to brightness is still linear. The problem with this is that because Google determined that there are only 256 possible values ​​that can map to a certain screen brightness, the lower bytes for the weak brightness have noticeable "stutters" or "jumps" in brightness between each step, so when you adjust the screen brightness between these values, it does not appear even. This also applies to the new adaptive brightness when it automatically changes to these brightnesses.

For concrete analysis, we showed that output brightness at brightness 1 is 2.4 rivets, while at next brightness 2, the display shows 3.0 nits. This is a 25% increase in size. For reference, it takes about 10% change in brightness to notice a difference in image brightness to suddenly switch from one patch to another (even less for scotopic vision, below 3.0 nits). Therefore, it should be no more than a 10% change in magnitude when you adjust the screen brightness so that the transition from one setting to another appears smoothly and not "jittery". These noticeable leakage levels remain until about 40 brightness levels, covering about 30% of the panel's perceptual brightness! This explains why adjusting the slider in the low end is stottery.

In addition, the logarithmic feature used by Google in its slider is not correct. The halfway point of the slider appears darker than half as bright as maximum. When testing the mapping, I found that the half-brightness was mapped to approximately one-sixth of the peak brightness. With the help of Stevens Power Law and his exponent for a point source, it appears about a quarter of a day as a peak emission. For further testing, the size required for displaying is half as bright, actually mapped to around 75% of the slider. In comparison with Steven's Power Law, we found that Google actually used a 0.25 modality exponent instead of 0.5 for the slider. Because of this, the display can generally dim, since the brightness rises too slowly when adjusting the slider.

Color Profiles

A handset can come with a variety of image profiles that can change the colors on the screen. Google Pixel 3 keeps its predecessor's natural and elevated position and replaces the old saturated profile with a similar custom profile.

The natural profile is the exact color profile that targets the sRGB color space as the default color space for all illegal media. The profile supports Android 8.0's auto color management so the profile can display large color content, but almost no apps support it. Pixel 3 is now standard for its new customizable profile. The color profile does not match any standard, but almost fades a color space with P3 red chromaticity, with a green chromaticity between Adobe RGB and P3, and with Rec. 2020 blue chromaticity. The profile seems approximately identical to the saturated color profile on Pixel 2 XL, inadvertently, as it also bought an LGD panel. One problem I noticed, however, is that the color profile is different between Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL. Pixel 3 has a larger build-in than Pixel 3 XL, and since the adaptive color profile stretches the screen colors to the built-in area, they are displayed differently. Thus, there is a lack of cohesion between the two handheld displays directly from their standard color profile, visible on the home screen of display devices in the stores.

The increased profile is the natural profile with a slight linear increase in saturation. The profile also supports auto color management.

Gamma

Gaming on a monitor determines the image's contrast and brightness on the screen. The industry standard gamma to be used on most displays follows a power function of 2.20. Higher display gamma forces will result in higher image contrast and darker color blends, as the film industry is moving forward, but smartphones are seen in many different light conditions where higher gamma power is not appropriate. Our gamma plot below is a log explanation of the color brightness of the color that appears on the Pixel 3 screen compared to the associated input color: Higher than Standard 2.20 line means color tones appear lighter and lower than the Standard 2.20 line means color tones appear darker. The axes are scaled logarithmically because the human eye has a logarithmic response to perceived brightness.

Like Pixel 2 XL's LG display, Pixel 3's image contrast is noticeably high with darker color mixes over the table, but it's not as intense as Pixel 2 XL (γ = 2.46). Standard Adaptive color profile has a very high gamma of 2.43, which is intense for a mobile display used by many consumers. For the natural and increased profiles, the higher gamma is more noticeable for the sRGB color space, because the colors were intended to be displayed initially with a screen gamma between 1.8 and 2.2. With the arrival of wide color, much content aimed at wider color spaces began to become a champion of a range of 2.4, with cinema now masters around 2.6 outside HDR.

While a display gamma of 2.2 is still the target tonnage accuracy target, OLED panel calibrators have historically had difficulty in achieving this goal because of the OLED property with varying brightness with the content APL. Usually, the higher APL lowers the image's relative brightness across the panel. To properly achieve a consistent display gamma, DDIC and display technology must be able to control voltages across the TFT backplane to normalize independently of emissions. The Samsung Display has actually managed to achieve this with its newer display technology featured on the Galaxy S9, Galaxy Note9 and Google Pixel 3 XL, all of which are superbly calibrated for both complete color and tonal accuracy due to this breakthrough. This is just another aspect where LG Display is currently behind.

Last year, both Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL received severe criticism for their abnormal blackcutting, with the LGD Pixel 2 XL as the worst criminals. We found that Pixel 2 XL had a limit of 8.6% at 10 nits while Samsung-equipped Pixel 2 had a black clip limit of 4.3%. This year, the Pixel 3 screen has a black click limit of 6.0%, which is a slight improvement compared to last year's LGD panel, but still very high. So far, only the iPhone X and iPhone Xs have been tested to have absolutely zero black clipping over their 8-bit intensity range at 10 nits, with OnePlus 6 that has an almost perfect 0.4% threshold. Samsung devices have been famous for mowing, and the last we tested for mowing was Galaxy Note 8, which cut color intensities below 2.7%.

An interesting feature is that when using full-field test patterns, the resulting display gamma is always very close to 2.20, regardless of the brightness of the display, while the resulting display gamma varied when measured with a constant APL. This makes me believe that maybe Google Pixel 3 calibrators were not calibrated at a constant APL, which is incorrect.

Color temperature

The color temperature of a white light source describes how "warm" or "cold" light is visible. The SRGB color space targets a white dot with a D65 (6504K) color temperature, which is said to be the average daylight in Europe. Targeting a white dot with a D65 color temperature is important in color accuracy. Note that a white point that is close to 6504K might not necessarily be displayed correctly. There is a countless combination of colors that can have a correlated color temperature of 6504K which does not even seem to be white. Therefore, the color temperature should not be used as a metric for white point sphere accuracy. Instead, it is a tool for assessing how the white point of a monitor is displayed and how it shifts over its brightness and gray scale interval. Regardless of the target color temperature of a monitor, preferably the white color should remain consistent at any intensity that would look like a straight line in our chart below. By observing the color temperature diagram with minimal brightness, we can get an idea of ​​how the panel manages low frequency levels before it may be cut by black.

The correlated color temperatures for all color profiles are usually straight with a few smaller kinks. All profiles get a little colder approaching darker colors. But when you show really dark colors, panel calibration starts to break down. At about 50% minimum brightness intensity, correlating to approximately 0.50 nits, the colors begin to increase heat exchangers before our light meter does not measure emissions below 25% intensity.

Color Accuracy

Our color logs give readers a rough assessment of color performance and calibration trends on a monitor. Below is the basis for the color accuracy targets, drawn on the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale, with the circles representing the target colors.

Reference sRGB color accuracy

The target color circles have a radius of 0.004, which is the distance to a noticeable color difference between two colors on the chart. Devices with only noticeable color differences are represented as red dots between the target color and the measured color, and a point or more generally denotes a noticeable color difference. If there are no red dots between a measured color and its target color, the measured color may be assumed to be correct. If there is one or more red dots between the measured color and its target color, the measured color can still be displayed correctly due to its color difference AE, which is a better indicator of visual markability than the euclidean distances on the chart.

In its exact color mode, the color calibration in the Nature Profile is extremely accurate in all scenarios, with a very exact total value AE of 1.2. In some cases, especially in typical office and indoor lighting, the colors are completely inseparable from perfect (even in diagnostic conditions) with a AE of 0.8. Well done, Google.

In Boosted mode, the screen colors are still mostly correct, with a noticeable difference in red, mid-blues and high-greens. It has an exact total value AE of 1.9. It is strange that the blower is more accurate in this profile, as they slightly underestimated their saturation in the natural profile. But high-rooted overcame more than any other color in this profile, with a cumbersome AE of 6.4.

After a full year of Android's implementation of color management, there has still been zero movement of it. Because of this, we will ignore P3 color accuracy because there is currently no place on Android until Google does any of it.

Power consumption

From Pixel 2 to Pixel 3, the display area increases by approximately 13%. A larger screen requires more power to deliver the same brightness, everything else is considered equal. However, Pixel 3 now uses an LGD display, while Pixel 2 uses a Samsung screen, and in addition to iterative technical advances, there are probably many differences in its underlying proprietary technology that can affect power consumption.

We measured the Pixel 3 screen to consume a maximum of 1.46 watts at its full emission, while Pixel 2, which has a similar peak brightness, consumes 1.14 watts. Normalized for both luminance and screen range, at 100% APL, the pixel 3 can output 2.14 candelas per watts, while Pixel 2 can output 2.44 candelas per watts, making the Pixel 3 display 14% less effective than the Pixel 2 screen at 100% APL.

OLED screens become more effective, the lower the APL display content. At 50% APL, Pixel outputs 3 4.60 candelas per watt, which is a 115% increase in efficiency over its 100% APL output. Pixel 2 at 50% APL, however, provides 5.67 candles per watt, which is 132% more efficient. This makes the Pixel 3 screen 23% less effective than the Pixel 2 screen at 50% APL.

Display Overview

Specification Google Pixel 3 notes
Display Type AMOLED, PenTile Diamond Pixel
Manufacturer LG Display No bootloop jokes here
screen size 4.9 inches with 2.5 inches

5.5-inch diagonal

12.1 square inches

Similar width to Pixel 2
Screen Resolution 2160 × 1080 pixels Actual number of pixels is slightly smaller due to the rounded corners
View image relationship 18: 9 Yes, it's also 2: 1. No, it should not be written so
Pixel density 443 pixels per inch Lower sub pixel density due to PenTile Diamond Pixels
Subpixeldensitet 313 red subpixels per inch

443 green subpixels per inch

313 blue subpixels per inch

PenTile Diamond Pixel screens have fewer red and blue sub pixels compared to green sub pixels
Distance for Pixel Acuity <11.0 inches for full color image

<7.8 inches for achromatic image

Distance for only resolution pixels with 20/20 views. Typical smartphone display distance is about 12 inches
Peak Brightness 420 candles per square meter at 100% APL

476 candles per square meter at 50% APL

572 candles per square meter at 1% APL

candelabra per square meter = nits
Maximum display effect 1.46 watts Emission power for emission at 100% APL peak brightness
Display Effect Efficiency 2.14 candles per watt at 100% APL

4.60 candles per watt at 50% APL

Normalizes brightness and screen area.
angle Shift -30% for brightness shift

AE = 6.6 for color change

AE = 10.3 total shift

Measured at 30 degrees increase
Black threshold 6.0% Minimum color intensity to be cut black, measured at 10 cd / m ^
Specification adaptive Natural increased notes
Gamma 2.43

Strongly high

2.30

A little too loud

2.33

A little too loud

Preferably between 2.20-2.30
Average color difference AE = 5.0

for sRGB

Not painted; oversaturated by design

AE = 1.2

for sRGB

Seems very accurate

AE = 1.9

for sRGB

Visas most accurately

AE values ​​below 2.3 are displayed correctly

AE The values ​​below 1.0 are displayed perfectly

White point Color difference 6847K

AE = 5.0

Call through design

6596K

AE = 2.9

6610K

AE = 3.0

Standard is 6504K
Maximum color difference AE = 8.5

at 100% cyan blue

for sRGB

AE = 2.0

at 50% yellow

for sRGB

Maximum error is displayed correctly

AE = 6.5

at 100% reddish

for sRGB

Maximum error AE under 5.0 is good

New XDA Display Letter Rating

To help our readers to get a better understanding of the quality of a monitor after reading all this technical mumbo jumbo, we've added a letter quality based on how the display is performed both quantitatively and subjective because some aspects of a monitor are difficult to measure and / or are beneficial.

The letter will depend in part on how other modern displays work. To get a reference frame, in our previous OnePlus 6 review, we would have given the display a B + letter quality: the display is lighter and handles black clipping very well; It retains good color accuracy in its calibrated viewing profiles but still has a high-screen gamma. The two benefits that it has over Pixel 3, while there are still other aspects that made Pixel 3 good and bad, is what puts it forward and gives it B + rating instead of Pixel 3's B. Overall, we find OnePlus 6 Display properties are overall somewhat better, without judging any of the preference aspects (image size, score).

We would give Galaxy Note 9 an A rating: Very good brightness with high brightness, good gamma control, images the app has a little color management. But it still has black clipping, and we found the color accuracy of the calibrated profiles to not be too impressive. IPhone X and iPhone Xs get both A + ratings: It has a strong manual brightness range without using high brightness, zero black clipping over its 8-bit intensity range, smart PWM control, the best color accuracy we've measured, great gamma control and Excellent color management with an operating system that uses wide color. These highly noticeable and experimental differences make it possible to move forward in Note 9 based on the display's qualities and how its software manages it, although there are other aspects that can make people enjoy the Not 9 display better, as its standard saturated profile or its seamless display.

A word on Google's adaptive profile decision

Personally, I strongly advocate Google's decision to deviate from a wide color extension profile. I believe it’s a tasteless and a purely marketing-driven decision that hurts the Android ecosystem, as well as its designers and developers.

To fuel this point, Android’s own automatic color management, implemented in Android 8.0, is not supported in this color profile, which is already severely lacking support. Even Google’s own Photos app does not support viewing images with embedded color profiles in any other color space. Google is undoubtedly most proud of their imaging prowess, and the Pixel line would benefit tremendously by capturing images in wide color (which their camera sensors support) and by being able to properly view wide color images, both of which Apple has streamlined in their hardware and their OS since the iPhone 7.

Because of Android’s incompetence in color management, there are millions of photos posted by iOS users that no Android display can faithfully reproduce due to its lack of software support, and that is mostly on Google to blame for not asserting a serious push for it. It has led the Android community to associate accurate colors with “dull” and “muted”  when the problem is that their designers have been left restrained with the smallest color pallet available. Rarely are iPhone displays described as “dull” or “muted,” but rather “vivid” and “punchy,” yet they provide some of the most accurate and professional working displays available on the market—they don’t need to artificially oversaturate all the colors on their screens to achieve this.

iOS app designers are encouraged to use wide color, while most Android designers are not even aware of it. All iOS app designers design on the same accurate color profile, while Android designers pick and test on all sorts of different color profiles, resulting in very little color cohesion from user to user. An app designer may be picking colors that he or she believes are tasteful on his or her color-stretched display, but the colors may turn out to seem overly less saturated than they’d like on an accurate display. The opposite is also true: When picking saturated colors on an accurate display, the colors may seem too saturated on color-stretched displays. This is just one reason why color management is essential to a cohesive and uniform design language. It’s something so critical that Google is currently disregarding when they’re trying to create their own design language — one without wide color, restrained to a color pallet established over twenty years ago.

Want more posts like this delivered to your inbox? Enter your email to be subscribed to our newsletter.

[ad_2]
Source link