DCP encryption cracked

>>56463159
Yeah, I actually watched this movie in perfect quality for my laptop before it came out in theaters. Good work on that guys.

Pirates win again, is not big surprise

File: 186.png (31KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x100px

>>56463159
Theatrecucks on suicidewatch

>>56463159
But where can you pirate it? Kickass, piratebay and isocunt are all dead

>>56465348
>piratebay dead
Is this even possible anymore?

>>56465348
Rutracker

DCP crypto is done with AES+TPM+RSA
Betting on compromised after decoding but before playback (i.e. software recording, WebRip style)
Still 1000x better than cam or telecine

File: 1457541638549.gif (965KB, 300x297px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 300x297px

Jews BTFO

>>56465395
It's a zombie. No matter how much you want it dead, the bastard keeps coming back.

File: wish me luck.png (38KB, 927x210px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 927x210px

Thanks for the tip OP

>>56465864
nice javs

>>56465864
How's G Gundam?

>>56465395
Piratebay on onion, dude.

>>56463159
>it's still 25fps
when will they ever learn?

low-framerate stuttery american media gives me a headache

>>56465864
Got a magnet link?

THANK YOU BASED PIRATES

File: a.png (102KB, 550x161px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 550x161px

>>56466615
who needs non-vomit-inducing framerates when we can instead have slightly sharper unimportant background elements?

>>56463159
I don't get it. I already watch movies fairly early? 1080p HD, 700-800mb. what's the big deal here?

>>56466774
24fps will always be sufficient for film.

>>56466877
24fps will always be sufficient for causing headaches

>>56466877
VHS resolution will also always be "sufficient" for watching a film, doesn't mean it's ideal

>>56466892
99.9% of the population does not have this problem.

really makes you think...

File: 1467302882039.jpg (175KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 960x960px

>>56465864
>38GiB

>>56466939
Na, there's really a limit on how much detail you can reproduce from VHS.

Now 4k is worthless but 720 to 1080 is perfectly fine.

>>56466950
it's retarded. a perfect rip is like 3gb tops...

>>56466943
Sturgeon's law applies to people

>>56466950
Well it's a high resolution and not compressed very much.
Raw video is extremely big.

>>56467019
3 hours of raw 2160p video is far, far bigger than 38G

>>56467019
>38 GB
>not compressed very much

>>56467033
>>56467044
Well okay if it was uncompressed it'd be like 900GB.

You could clearly compress it down to below 38GB though if you upped the compression. There's a lot of room there.

>>56467033
>>56467044
what the fuck... are you telling me I need a bigger file for 4k? your retarded... how come I am streamin 4k youtube so quickly then?

>>56467062
because youtube quality is ass

>>56467069
what are you talking about... it's 4k, it's pretty much perfect. literal eye candy.

>>56467062
Youtube's encodes make YIFY look good in comparison.

>>56467095
but there is no difference between them. real 4k is real 4k.

>>56467079
You should watch some real 4K. For example, download this hateful eight release.
Or you might not want to since you'll stop seeing youtube 4K as good looking.

>>56467107
You have very little comprehension of compression.

>>56465864
>dat Tokyohot
Das it mane

>>56465513
If the projector (w/ appropriate keys) can read and decrypt the package, so can a hypothetical ripping tool. I'm shocked it hadn't happened before now.

>>56467110
>>56467125
wait up... so you've been saying that all those 4-5gb 4k movies I've watched were NOT real 4k?

>>56467167
get your shit together m8, there's a lot more to video quality than just megapickles

>>56467167
Like I said, you have very little comprehension of compression.
You have no watched any uncompressed 4K video, so no, those movies were not real 4K.
Neither are these DCP rips, but they're much closer.

>>56467167
It's complicated. They're real 4K in the sense that the picture is 3840 pixels wide. They're fake 4K in the sense that the bitrate is too low to take proper advantage of 4K.

Think of it like saving a JPEG in Photoshop. Let's say you need to fit a picture into 100KB. You have two options: Resize it to 2K and save with a high JPEG quality setting, or save it at 4K but with a very low quality setting. The 4K one might still have some more detail in places but overall the low quality setting will make it look awful, right? Blocky and smeary, etc. The 2K, high-quality one would look way better.

The concepts of still image compression don't exactly map into video compression, but hopefully that helps with the general idea.

>>56467191
>it's not uncompressed so it's not 4K
And you're just as clueless as him.

>>56467254
You know, if you're going to quote me you could at least not remove words that completely change the meaning of the sentence.

>>56467110
His entire world view revolves around the idea that resolution is everything and there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between files apart from that. (i.e. typical consumer mindset)

Something tells me he would probably even prefer the youtube version..

>>56467268
Which words? Real? What the fuck is "real" 4K supposed to mean? It's either 4K or it isn't. And yes, those shitty youtube videos are 4K. It's just that resolution is not an indicator of quality.

File: mpv-shot0003.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>56467167
>>56467079
(would have uploaded the clip i made, but 4chan has a 2048x2048 webm resolution limit)
...(would have uploaded a png, but it was over the png size limit)

>>56467308
I implied real as being uncompressed.
Like calling Kraft slices cheese- kraft slices are compressed cheese.

>>56467325
wow this is higher quality than real life

>>56467165
No, projector has HW keys like a TPM/EMV chip
Only way is to "imitate" projector to TPM then MITM. This has to be done live, time lock with ramper proof hw clock.
And they're watermarked, so an insider can't do it unless they have 2 in different countries

>>56467191
>>56467308

There's no official one true meaning of "real" 4K. Having said that, it's true that it is misleading to advertise a video source by its resolution if the encoding parameters are blatantly insufficient to make use of that resolution.

If I were asked to define "real 4K", I'd go with one of these:

* 3840x2160 encoded transparently; i.e no quality degradation compared to a lossless encoding of the same resolution for a viewer with typical eyesight and at typical viewing distance

or a lesser, but more realistic definition:

* 3840x2160 encoded at a high enough quality to provide a significant image quality improvement relative to transparent 1080p (the definition of "significant" is left as an exercise for the reader).

>>56467329
This is silly. A high enough quality lossy video encoding is completely indistinguishable from lossless to human eyes.

>>56467373
Then what about italian style hard cheese verses parmesan
Or Mozzarella made with cow's milk.

Well whatever the point is that youtube 4K is heavily compressed

>>56466950
>Inb4 people will tell you that Gibibyte don't exist

>>56467361
>>56467325
actually here, i'll do this

check out this literal eye candy
https://jii.moe/VJK5_eYsb.webm

>>56467373
4K is 4K, regardless of quality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

>>56467167
>4-5GB 4k videos
>4x the number of pixels as 1080p but still the acceptable file size range as 1080p
See, the problem here is that you have been watching shit 1080 rips in comparison.

4k should still only be 16-20GB though.

>>56467396
Enjoy your 400kb/s '4K'

>>56467033
38 GiB IS bigger than 38 GB.

>>56467411
No, I won't enjoy it, but it still is 4K.

So what does this mean for existing movies? I doubt we'll be able to see movies from say, earlier this year uploaded as DCP rips due to people just not having access to them anymore, right? Or have people been grabbing these on the off chance there'd be a breakthrough like this?

>>56467412
And so is your mom's fat ass

>>56467412
yes, thanks for that completely irrelevant piece of information i already knew

How do they get around the watermark?

im fine with 720p
fuck dowloading 50gb

>>56467396
Yes, technically you can call any 3840x2160 encode "4K". But people expect a certain quality standard from 4K, because it's advertised as the next big thing/cinema quality/etc. If your encoding falls far short of that standard, it is misleading to call it 4K even though you're technically correct.

>>56467419
Given people's propensity for hoarding, there's bound to be at least one autist still holding onto them.

>>56467442
People who conflate resolution with perceived video quality are misleading themselves.
It's entirely their own fault.

>>56467456
Where do you draw the line? If I tell someone I'm delivering a 4K video to them, but it's actually an upscaled DVD, is that A-okay in your book because technically the file is 3840x2160?

>>56467456
Well you see, there's an argument that goes along like this:
People are not expected to know the fine details of every single thing they buy, and expect that the advertising and labelling is accurate and not misleading. Therefore it is not the responsibility of the consumer to not be mislead, but of the sellers to not mislead.

Also I hate how in that sentence mislead is pronounced two different ways. Sorry non-english natives.

>>56467485
He's a libertarian, don't bother. Rational arguments are useless.

>>56466627
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:819affa4490e49d4bc30699a0415fe0dc4174cb7&dn=The%20Hateful%20Eight%202015%204K%20UHD%202160p%20REMUX%20DCPRip%20DTS-HD%205.1-DDR&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fzer0day.ch%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fopen.demonii.com%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fexodus.desync.com%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969

>>56467373
Real 4k from an encoding standpoint is retarded in my opinion.

The only real 4k is video that is filmed in 4k, not those that were filmed at 1080/2k and then upsampled to 4k to fill a quota of UHD movie releases.

>>56465348

Piratebay is coming back to life more now that ex KAT user as well as uploaders are going back to it

The only problem with piratebay is its indexing/sorting will never be fixed

Sooooo...What's the verdict? Download this or wait?

>>56467442
>But people expect a certain quality standard from 4K
Most people won't/can't even see the fucking difference at a normal distance from their screen.
They're going to be horribly disappointed.

>>56467527
might aswell download. I am not taking anyone else's word for it.

>>56467527
i will just put this on my seed box and test it. But its so slow at this time.

File: literal eye candy 720.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>56467393
around the same bitrate, but 720p
notice how much nicer the quality is overall

if you want small files, it's usually better to get a higher quality lower resolution copy, than a bit-starved higher resolution one

>>56463159
This still doesn't stop movie content from sucking.

>>56466995
>Now 4k is worthless

More like its niche for people who own 4k Displays

>>56467485
It would not be okay because you would be using a higher resolution that the source resolution. It would be 4K though.

>>56467495
Youtube and Netflix are already providing 4K video that looks worse than 1080p BluRay. Advertising is deliberately misleading and they get away with it because it is technically accurate.

>>56467596
It's not even that.

The biggest jump in quality we had was VHS to DVD.
The next biggest jump, which was still quite a big jump, was DVD to Blu-ray, and a big portion of that was simply because mpeg-2 was a pile of shit.

But now we are at the point where size of TV, comfortable viewing distance and resolution are meeting up with that whole Retina calculation.

So unless you have a 4k display that you're going to sit two feet away from, so mostly us, you're not going to see most of the added benefit of detail from 4k simply because your eyes can't resolve it.

Which means that for most people who decide to sit around in their lounge and watch their 4k movies on their 4k TV they literally wouldn't be able to see any difference between it and 1080p on the same screen.

>>56466950

>What the fuck is "real" 4K supposed to mean?

It means content originally created in that resolution and not artificially upscaled after

>>56467702
To be fair, I'm only interested in 4k because I'll be able to take better quality screenshots for shitposting purposes.

>>56467702
>Which means that for most people who decide to sit around in their lounge and watch their 4k movies on their 4k TV they literally wouldn't be able to see any difference between it and 1080p on the same screen.

I guess only PC vidya players would have any benefit to use it

>>56467702
>Which means that for most people who decide to sit around in their lounge and watch their 4k movies on their 4k TV they literally wouldn't be able to see any difference between it and 1080p on the same screen.

You can see more detail by sitting closer :^)

>>56467513
How can I distinguish the difference?

>filmed in 4k
But what if it was shot on film? Film doesn't have a resolution per se.

>>56467520
>>56467520

i just tried using piratebay and it steams that they did fix the indexing/sorting and also the search

it use to be broken a few weeks ago but i guess they fixed it now

>>56467896
Film doesn't have a set pixel resolution but you still have a limited amount of detail that can be captured through a given lens.

>>56467970
>>56467520

isn't it still filled with malware and harmful ads n shiet?

>>56467896
>But what if it was shot on film? Film doesn't have a resolution per se.

A rough rule of thumb conversion for a movie resolution that was shot in 35mm film is around 30-40 megapixel

1080p resolution is around 2 megapixel in comparison

>>56463159
>theater gets 4k release
>it's not released on home video
what is this shit

4k is still unpiratable due to the massive file sizes.

You download 2 4k videos and your HDD will be maxed the fuck out.

Can't you silly goyim see that 4k is just a meme?

>>56467970

It search/indexing/sorting is still shot when compared to what KAT had. TPB has npt been updated for decades

>>56467994
>isn't it still filled with malware and harmful ads n shiet?

Use adblockers, dont download software from TPB. Download from known uploaders and you are good to use TPB

>>56467575
>>56467575
>>56467325
>>56467325


is this a movie or show?

>>56468042
>TPB has npt been updated for decades
>decades
I don't even know if you're underage and you think torrents have been around since BBS days or if you're exaggerating.
I genuinely can't even tell anymore.

>>56468023
>4k is still unpiratable due to the massive file sizes.

Did you even read this thread? People ARE pirating 4k. Not everyone has shit internet in their country

>>56468045
show, Strike Back
i haven't watched it yet, so i couldn't say if it's any good

>>56468023
>What is compression

>>56468042
>>56468042

it might not be KAT level but beggers can't be choosers

at least it works not compare to it being broken a few weeks ago

>>56463240
>>56465348
>pirate
>>56466656
>PIRATES
>>56468023
>unpiratable
>>56468057
>People ARE pirating 4k
Technically they're infringing on the copyright, not pirating.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

>>56468023
Yes let's just go ahead and download RAW 4k videos.

>>56467373
I would drop the stupid meaningless “4K” marketing buzzword label in favor of something like UHDTV, which has well-defined signal parameters and bitrates

>>56468056

It was hyperbole, it hasnt been updated in the backend much since the 2006 raid I think

>>56467496
Thanks

>>56467702
>So unless you have a 4k display that you're going to sit two feet away from, so mostly us, you're not going to see most of the added benefit of detail from 4k simply because your eyes can't resolve it.
Again, the point of 4K is to widen the field of view, not increase the resolution.

You should always be sitting at “retina” distance, even for 1080p sets. 2160p just doubles the screen dimensions.

>>56468023
If 10bit/x265 encodes are like, half the size of x264 encodes (so much so that sometimes the audio streams are larger than the video streams), then we can probably do 4K at reasonable file sizes.

File: usbthumbdrive.jpg (18KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x300px

Best USB 3.0 memory stick?

>>56465404

sshhhhhhhhhhhhh *sushing*

>>56468857
>memory stick
It's called flash drive

>>56465864
38 GB is extremely small for DCP, that fits perfectly on a BD
>>56468088
I have done this with any test clip I can find, it's great for benchmarking encoder

>>56468023
What kind of pleb tier HDDs do you have? My OSes and software live on 3 SSDs (2x 256GB 1x 1TB) and I have 3 3TB HDDs for data, including one solely for video. Even with big high quality BR rips of longass Kubrick films, I'm not even close to filling one up. And if you do, big deal, delete some shit and download it again later if you want to re-watch. lrn2compute

>>56469031
>38 GB is extremely small for DCP, that fits perfectly on a BD
It's not a remux from the DCP anyway, DCPs use retarded shit like encoding movies as a sequence of completely independent 16-bit XYZ JPEG2000 frames in DCI-3P colorspace

It's most likely a transcode to H.264 (or maybe H.265)

>>56465864
>seeding

>>56468906
>Not calling it a dongle

>>56469592

       month        rx      |     tx      |    total    |   avg. rate
    ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
      Aug '16      6.56 TiB |    7.18 TiB |   13.74 TiB |   44.07 Mbit/s
    ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------

>>56469601
thumb disquette

>>56469526
>It's not a remux from the DCP anyway
Why label it remux tho

why is there a public tracker general or public piracy general maybe. Is there another /ppg/ on /g/?

>>56470021

Scene release arent always perfect, they are many a times inaccurate/deceptive/malicious q

>>56468086
autism

>>56470046

why isnt*

>>56468086
backpedalling

>>56469526
>DCPs use retarded shit like encoding movies as a sequence of completely independent 16-bit XYZ JPEG2000 frames in DCI-3P colorspace
>retarded shit
>retarded shit

The best way of having a transition from Digital Intermediate film projects and have easiest frame-accurate repurposing, remastering, additional cuts and credits in different languages without dealing with Group-of-Pictures shit and reencoding. Uses JPEG2000, which is a codec nearer to HEVC than to H264. P3 colorspace tried to fit almost all of the film colorspace (a "teensy bit" larger than sRGB) in the minimum amount of bits, in reality only 12 bits. The DCP encoder receives 16-bit TIFFs with 12-bits of P3 info and 4 bits of padding because the JPEG libraries don't know what to do with 12 bits.

A DCP remux would be around 300GB, the rule of thumb was that a DCP encode would always fit on a 500GB hard drive.

>retarded shit
DCP was never meant for home distribution, senpai. in fact, it was a bonus that the technical standard was totally alien to broadcast/home viewing.

>>56470331
>Uses JPEG2000, which is a codec nearer to HEVC than to H264
JPEG2000 is a completely shitty codec and even H.264 will wipe the floor with it, literally the ONLY reason it's used is because of jp2k hardware manufacturer lobbies

>>56470331
>DCP was never meant for home distribution, senpai
I honestly don't know *what* it was ever meant for. It surely isn't used during the mixing/mastering process, and it's a completely stupid format to use for distribution (yes, distribution to cinemas counts as distribution)

Literally the only reason it's used is so they can sell you their overpriced, stupidly expensive hardware DCP players instead of letting cinemas use commodity hardware

>>56470482
>JPEG2000 is a completely shitty codec

Considering it doesn't do interframe compression, it's not too bad. But interframe compression (which makes up most of the extra efficiency between DV and MPEG2, for example) was impossible for the usage of DCP, as explained above.
>>56470501
Commodity hardware that could play 2K in a 300-room theater in 2005? Think again, bozo. And DCP wasn't made in the theatres' interest, it was made by Hollywood for Hollywood (Fox, Sony, paramount, Warner) interests - a closed ecosystem they forced film theatres to migrate to and that they hold the keys for, just like in the Sound conversion era and before "US vs Paramount Pictures" broke up the regional monopolies.
Heck, the content protection section in the DCI standards is longer than the technical standard.
>MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

>>56470643
s/room/seat

>>56470643
>Considering it doesn't do interframe compression, it's not too bad.
Literally compare jpeg2000 against x264 on a single frame clip

>>56470643
>it was made by Hollywood for Hollywood (Fox, Sony, paramount, Warner) interests - a closed ecosystem they forced film theatres to migrate to and that they hold the keys for
That's exactly what I said

>>56470725
Literally compare PSNR between x264 encoder builds and JP2K builds made around 2005. Also, JP2K is a standard codec they could get into hardware easily.
>DCP started being discussed in 2003 and is 2004-2005 tech.

>>56470736
So how does that make it anything that would ever think of "commodity hardware" as a design point?
Commodity hardware at the time (2005) was 1080i projectors with 1/10th of the foot-lamberts of a Xenon-lamp film projector, fed by HDCAM players. Good god, a DCP projector is WAY better than that!

>>56463159

>3840x1396
>4K ultraHD
Kek

>>56468086
But piracy is cool.

>>56469601
That's sexist.

>>56470798
>PSNR
Yes, use the metric invented by JP2K lobbyists to promote their shitty codec. Great idea. PSNR is a terrible metric.

JP2K looks like shit to humans, always has. Normal JPG looks better to me, at the same same bitrates. The codec has no place in this world, its entire existence is the product of greed.

>>56471105
Sorry, I shouldn't say invented - I should say promoted

>>56468200
Too bad x265 is still shit

>>56470849
I don't see what a projector has got jack shit to do with the codec you use to compress your files for distribution. I was talking about the beefy custom hardware decoders you need for the JP2K shit.

You could have just used a contemporary codec (MPEG-family) that has readily available and widely spread hardware decoding chips in every single commodity DVD player, thrown the same number of bits at it, and gotten a better result (because let's face it, even MPEG2 is better than JPEG2K)

>>56465864
You know any good JAV titles about girls masturbating and squirting in their clothes?

>.1% have this problem
>>56467008
>Sturgeon's law
>90%

hmm now to figure out what the problem is with the other 89.9%

>>56471188

Wither MPEG2 support for XYZ and DCI-P3? And MPEG2 support for more than 8-bit per channel? DCI wouldn't go to the lengths they did if they hadn't had a very specific goal in mind. They had to surpass the visual quality of PROJECTED 35mm FILM.
Between 2003 and 2005, nothing of what you say could even come close. And general purpose computers shat themselves playing MPEG2 HD without hardware assistance, while most GPU offloading was still minimal. CPU decoding of JP2K was slideshow, hence hardware.
Requirements
Visual quality near or better than projected 35mm film
>DCI-P3, 12-bit color
12-bit color = any broadcast codec is impossible
>JP2K
no interframe compression, frame addressable
>We're doing Digital Intermediate with frame sequences in TIFFs and DPXs, bonus!
needs 250Mbps
>Oh bugger, we're going to need hardware
Rooms of 300 seats
>Oh bugger, we still need Xenon projectors

Heck, DCI dropped all proprietary sound formats (Dolby SR-D, DTS, SDDS) like hot stones and specified bog-standard, uncompressed, 24-bit WAV. Why? Because it was FEASIBLE. DCI would have picked ACES OpenEXR uncompressed files if they had been available at the time.

But really, dudes, film projection is not a home environment. Most E-Cinema (small theatres using video projectors) moved to DCP as soon as there were funds available to do it. And if you go to India, Nigeria, Brazil, etc, you'll still find E-cinema networks. It's still better than old, busted, scratched and dirty film reels.

>>56465947
I don't even watch most of them I just like putting them into PLEX and seeing all the covers when I'm bored.
>>56466547
It's a good torrent, but the 1080p remaster is coming soon.

>>56467396
A pound of explosives is still a pound of explosives, regardless if it's made of dynamite, TNT, or plutonium.

>>56467167
>4-5gb
>4K
Kek. Enjoy your eyecancer

>>56470925
the "1080p" release was 1920x700

>>56466877
lol kill yourself

>>56466615
>muh 60 fps
Why the fuck you want more FPS to a medium where image is used to told a story rather than get your e penis big?

>>56463159
now i can eat tendies with choclit milk while wearing my footy pajamas without having to go through the indignity of being herded into the singleton pit, and being told they ran out of crab legs, and falcon snacks for my majestic falcon.

i never minded the penis inspectitions, but being mocked for being a singleton was far too much to bear. I AM A MAN, I HAVE A WAIFU, AND YOU CAN LEAVE MY BASEMENT MOM IF YOU DONT LIKE MY VAPING!!

>4K
>on a home TV
Enjoy tiny subtitles

>>56476348
i'd prefer to follow movement without being pulled out of it with detail-destroying blur and disorienting/painful judder
a higher framerate is more important to me than higher resolution
i'd sooner watch a 60fps dvd than a 24fps bluray

File: dvd_scdc_woof.jpg (52KB, 350x70px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 350x70px

It was only a matter of time...

>>56478273
Literal autism.
This has never been an issue for >99 % of people, ever.

>>56471134
Highly informative. Care to explain why?

>>56478417
Not him but I too prefer 50 or 60 FPS.

Old TV material, like documentaries, were often filmed as i60 but rippers convert them to p30.
That's why I buy my favorite TV material on DVD, and convert it to p60 with elaborate motion compensating deinterlacing.
It's just so much better.

>>56468876
Rutracker is a fucking meme
full of slav malware

>>56467062
>because they rolled your mom down the internet tubes to make them bigger.

File: flash drives out for harambe.jpg (9KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x300px

>>56468857
These. They come in 8-128 GiB sizes. Fucking indestructible.

>>56467575
that one looks alot better

>>56479189
that's what i'm saying, the bitrate is around the same, but since there's a lot less pixels to deal with, the codec is able to preserve a lot more detail
so there's a tradeoff, obviously 720p has a lower limit than 4K when used to their full extent, but when the bitrate is too constraining, lowering the frame size to preserve more frame detail makes more sense, what good is sharper edges when everything else is blurred out

>>56467183
playa, if you aint got the megapickles, you aint got the bitches.

then all you gots is shame, fingerboxes and a bodypillow that is angry at you for forgetting your anniversary and calling her mom a fucking bitch.

>>56467396
20 pounds of pussy and ass isnt the same on a big booty short girl, as it is on a skinny 6'3 mannish dyke.