I had not planned on adding any further commentary to the HTML5 and future of Flash discussion.  Truthfully, HTML5 is a bit of a freight train right now.  The technical details don’t really matter, it has so much buzz and momentum that to stand in front of it and try to influence its path is a fool’s errand.  It will take a little time for it to run its course and for everyone figure out where it fits within the world of advertising and digital campaign concepting and development.

Then last week a colleague and executive producer at a large agency contacted me and asked if I could share my thoughts. She indicated there was a lot of confusion and misinformation in and among the ranks in the advertising world and she was asking a few of her trusted production partners to share their perspective.  I agreed and set out to write a few paragraphs.  The more I wrote, the more there was to say and it turned out to be quite lengthy. It’s a complicated issue often without clear cut answers.  My notes to her are shared below:

HTML5 Now

HTML5 is hot.  The echo chamber is loud and everywhere you turn blogs, twitter, magazines, corporations, are heralding it as the silver-bullet for everything—and more. It’s magical.

But what is the current reality of HTML5 for Advertising Agencies and their Digital Production partners? And what does it mean for those concepting and developing real client campaigns with real business goals?

Flash: Anything Is Possible

It is difficult to have this discussion without first looking at Flash and where it has fit into the picture for the past decade. After all, this is what HTML5 is slated to replace:

At Agencies

For the agency teams working on a digital concept for the next big campaign, targeting Flash as the development platform meant they could focus on the concept and creative rather than the technology.  Once Flash had matured there was a solid track record of prior art showing that just about anything they could come up with was possible and could be built by the right production partner. And if there wasn’t a clear way, the best developers would come up with one.  Papervision 3D was a great example of that. Flash did not have 3D capabilities built in, but the top developers in the community made it happen. And when they did, 3D in Flash was now possible in every browser on every operating system, immediately.

It was a great ecosystem for those involved.  Creatives could come up with big ideas and feel confident they were possible, without having to worry too much about the technology.  Developers were pushed to do some amazing work and often did amazing work on their own, which lead creatives to great new ideas.  One developer invents PaperVision 3D, another one figures out Augmented Reality Markers and next thing you know we have a live Big Foot interacting with you live on your webcam (www.livingsasquatch.com).

And for their part, Adobe actually innovated at a fairly rapid pace. Frequently releasing new versions of the Flash player with desirable features that could be put into practice within around eight to twelve months time; as player penetration passed 95% for the latest version, guaranteeing nearly your entire audience would get a single, consistent experience. Something your clients expect no matter what the technology.

At Digital Production Shops

With any new project brief there are several things we want to look at to decide if it is a project we’d want to persue.  The core of which are: how will we do it, how much time will it take, and how do those two items compare to the available budget and timeline?  Budgets will vary, but timelines are consistently not long enough!  Flash gave us the luxury of predicability.  We could predictably estimate the time a project would take and the development techniques used to achieve the end result were generally clear.  Rather than targeting and customizing a launch for a slew of unpredictable browsers, we are only targeting one platform: the Flash runtime, which will run with 99% consistency across all browsers.

And we knew that rarely would someone come to us with a crazy cool idea that wouldn’t be possible. Whether it involved 3D, user generated content, webcams, sound, microphones, interactive video, Facebook integration, or whatever other wild campaign ideas our partners or us dreamt up. It was rare that we felt limited by technology when targeting the Flash platform.

HTML5: Mission Impossible

Mobile has been the true driver of HTML5 on the desktop and elsewhere.  Without the success of the mobile platform, pioneered by Apple, then followed by Steve Jobs infamous words against Flash, the methodology of how sites should be built for the desktop would not have changed from three years ago. But even prior to mobile’s success, there have always been sites with requirements making them best suited for HTML.  They are easy to identify and usually are heavy on content, light on interactivity, animation, sound, and video.  Because these are generally simple sites, browser incompatibility tends to require minor work arounds and has limited impact on time and budget. On the Flip side, for any site intended to be highly interactive, Flash was always the clear choice. Allowing you to develop freely, forgetting about the browser.  But now mobile is big and must be considered with most projects.  Flash is not an option on mobile browsers and it never will be.

So here we are today where a belief has been manifested that HTML5 can do everything that Flash can do and it works the same across desktop and mobile. So Flash is dead.  An article on a popular blog was recently linked to in my twitter feed, it proposed a list of “7 Killer Flash sites that should be remade with HTML5 and CSS3.” (http://tnw.co/wJfrjm)

Unfortunately this isn’t a reality and articles such as this continue to spread a fallacy of HTML5 being the new answer for everything. It remains far more complex of an issue and HTML5 cannot do everything Flash can.  In reality trying to create these sites in HTML5 is more like “Mission Impossible” and most of them would need to be re-concepted from the ground up; with creative and user experience design that was tailored to HTML5′s capabilities.  Could the Tom Cruise of HTML5 Development (Dom Cruise) pull it off? Maybe in a few cases, but what would be the cost and what percentage of the target audience will be able to view the site?  I know that with Flash sites, most clients were unwilling to allow a site published in the latest version of the Flash player until it reaches higher that 95% penetration.  Will a WebGL site that 50% of your visitors can use really be acceptable?  And we’ll often get briefs for Flash projects that have as little as a two or three week development timeline. Good luck with that in HTML5.

As a side note, it’s interesting to point out that the article was linked to in a tweet by the Co-Founder and Technical Director of Odopod saying:  ”Could these be rebuilt without losing the magic? “7 Killer Flash sites that should be remade with HTML5 and CSS3.”  He followed up in the article comments saying “It is hard to believe that these sites could be rebuilt in HTML/CSS/JS without either losing some of their magic or costing a fortune to implement and maintain. For building an experience as immersive as Jim Carrey’s site, Flash remains my choice. For mobile, and other non-flash devices, I would recommend an alternative presentation of the content that is less immersive.”

Odopod is a company known for applying the right technology for the job, they have done stellar work in both Flash and HTML. Browsing their portfolio you’ll notice a good deal of HTML sites and much of their work these days seems to lean towards HTML/Mobile. So I would value this as an authoritative and objective opinion on the matter.

 Two out of three ain’t bad

Ironically, most of the cutting edge, Flash-like HTML5 sites you see these days don’t work on tablets or smart phones either.  They either use HTML5 features that aren’t available in mobile browsers (WebGL), offer poor performance (Canvas),  or the layout and user experience design does not work properly.  This is perplexing since the primary argument for dropping flash is compatibility on Mobile.  So lets take a quick look at two HTML5 sites in practice:

Adidas F50

http://www.adidas.com/football/se/pages/f50
This site has received a decent bit of buzz.  It is built using WebGL, a promising feature of HTML5 that allows you to do full hardware accelerated 3D.  The site is nicely done, though not an overwhelmingly impressive experience to the end user who doesn’t care about the technologies used. Since the site relies on WebGL, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of visitors will be able to see it as intended (WebGL availability:  http://caniuse.com/#feat=webgl).   Surprisingly when we visited the site from a non WebGL enabled browser we noticed the developers actually created a second version of the site in Flash. Both the Flash site and WebGL site were 95% identical.  This means someone had to eat the costs of building two sites with about 10% code re-use between them, purely for the sake of using HTML5, but with no actual benefit to the user.  When you visit the site from an iPad or iPhone all you get is a splash page saying you need Flash or Google Chrome.  I simply cannot understand the logic in this strategy for anyone with business goals and limited time and budget.

Sobe

 www.sobe.com
Sobe recently relaunched their site, it features a nice design and user experience. The user interface is unique, well thought out, and usable for desktop visitors.  Animations are fairly simple: fades, animated layers, sliding panels, etc. The main use of HTML5 tags seems to be for the video player which does not rely on Flash, but rather a custom skinned HTML5 player.  On the iPad the site functioned well and the interface held up to provide a nice user experience. Animations did degrade a bit and more choppiness was experienced than on the desktop.  On the iPhone the site becomes nearly unusable as the UI was simply not designed for such a small screen and functions erratically while mixing up swipe gestures with scrolling.  Overall it is a great site that in the past would likely have been done using Flash, but is simple enough that is can now be done in HTML5. However it is complex enough that development time will go up due to browser debugging and work arounds.

A site like Sobe is a good candidate for HTML5 Now.  The creative requirements are limited enough in scope that there are no red flags. You kill two birds with one stone with it functioning on desktop and tablets, but it did break down on smart phones. Showing that even with a simpler site such as this, HTML5 was not the sole answer and a second smart phone site needs to be developed.  Beyond sites with basic animation and interactivity, it becomes far more difficult to make any logical argument for HTML5 now.  The Adidas site may have been funded as experimental or possibly the developer was willing to eat the costs for the sake of using WebGL, but under normal circumstances pushing a strategy like this for a campaign site under a tight deadline and budget is asking for trouble. Wouldn’t it have been smarter to create a Flash site on the desktop reaching 98% of all desktop visitors, then put the remaining effort into a mobile specific site? They ended up with a site that only worked for desktop visitors even though it was targeting HTML5, thus only capturing one of the three current core audience platforms.

The technology aside, there are other fundamental problems with trying to make one site fit all. Screen resolutions are all over the place. Can you really expect to design something for a  22″ desktop screen that will look good on a 10″ tablet (iPad), a 7″ tablet (Kindle fire) and 3.5″ screen (average smartphone)? You also may not want the same amount of content on your mobile site, as lots of people like to find necessary information quickly and prefer more immersive experiences on a large screen when they’re sitting comfortably. Finally, you have the point-and-click world versus the touch-and-slide; this will affect everything from the size of a button (you’d make it larger for a finger than for a mouse cursor) to the user experience (sliding through a photo gallery on an iPad is a lot easier than clicking and sliding images with your mouse on a desktop site).

The best-case scenario would be to have the time and budget to create a specific site for each target. The best smartphone sites out there were designed specifically for the small form factor. That can be said about the best tablet sites (and apps), as well as the best desktop sites. This is rarely a realistic option for client budgets, though. We believe that right now when budget is a factor (and it almost always is), your best bet is to create two versions of a site. Target two platforms/devices with one version. Example: Make a HTML5 site that looks great on your desktop and works well on your iPad, then make a specific smartphone only site. Or, make a basic HTML site that works fine on tablets and smartphones, then make a specific desktop-only site that breaks the mould and delivers a unique experience. And in this case, why not use Flash?

Looking Forward

We’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon as a side effect of the HTML5 buzz explosion.  Industry folk and the developer community seem to be expecting and accepting less from HTML5 sites than their Flash brethren.  Essentially, it takes far less robust of an end user experience for an HTML5 site to receive critical acclaim that with a Flash site; a sort of “HTML5 Affirmative Action.” You can see this in examples such as this: We have two “Graphic Novel” themed sites. The first an FWA award winning HTML5 site on January 30th, 2012 (http://www.soul-reaper.com/). The site features lovely illustration and a single auto scrolling page with some simple animations; continuing the “Single Scrolling Page” theme we are becoming accustomed to seeing day in and day out. To the non-techy end user, this is a nice looking site, but it doesn’t offer much in the way of an experience. Now compare that with our second “Graphic Novel” themed Flash site from 2009: Team Geist. Also an FWA award winning site, it features a uniquely concepted game that combines Live Action Cinema, 3D, Visual Effects, Game Strategy, Social Integration, all in a tightly woven package built in Flash. It required a large production and development team across multiple disciplines; as seen in the Behind the Scenes features here: http://www.northkingdom.com/case-studies/adidas-teamgeist/.

Truth be told, this has actually created a solid advantage for using HTML5 as a means of generating buzz in the developer communities. It takes far less of a commitment of time, resources, and innovative thinking to create a site deemed buzz and award worthy (though a chunk of time will now need to be devoted to debugging and browser compatibility solves).  This, however, assumes your target audience are those in the community around you, who care mostly about the trends and the nitty gritty tech of how a site was built. If that is not your target audience, then you may not be meeting your client’s goals of reaching a larger non tech savvy audience. How long this phenomenon will last is still uncertain.  If the innovation hits a ceiling due to technical limitations or continued browser limitations, we could see a shift back before the next 100 parallax scrolling single page HTML5 sites hit the web.

.NET magazine recently released an article about the “15 top web design development trends for 2012” in which seasoned designer Tom Muller predicts Flash will surely survive, certainly in the near-term. He explains that during 2011, he was involved in three major projects that relied on Flash, simply because it remains the best tool for interactive video, animation and 3d online. He added, “Web designers and developers sometimes lose sight of what works and is demanded by a larger audience, due to preferring what’s considered ‘cool’ in their bubble,” and that “More big brands will shift from Flash, testing the water with HTML5 and CSS3 for focussed campaigns. But for entertainment sites, Flash is – and will remain – the predominant tool of choice to create engaging experiences.

One certainty in HTML5′s future is that the pace of innovation will be slower than anyone would like.  Instead of a situation where we rely on one company to innovate and release new features (in the way that Adobe does with Flash or Apple does with iOS), we are relying on a standards board to decide on features and then four browser manufactures to implement then. Furthermore, once the browser manufacturers implement them, users of each browser need to get the latest upgrade. And finally, with each browser comes a new set of bugs that developers need to create work arounds for.  For an inside look at how convoluted the web standards process can be, have a look at the following excerpt from the book “HTML5 For Web Designers – by Jeremy Keith.”  The excerpt is from the opening of the book and details how HTML5 came to exist, it describes all the infighting going on behind the scenes. It is a true nerd war, including the big decision on whether it should be “HTML5″ or “HTML 5″ with a space.  Critical stuff.

For developers we have sites like http://html5please.us/ which tell us the features of HTML5 we can safely use and those that are broken or don’t work in specific browsers and need fallbacks. While this site may be seen as a handy resource for developers, the fact that it exists at all should be a warning to anyone seeking to have a cutting edge HTML5 site developed. To look at this from another perspective:  Can you imagine if you wanted to build an iPhone application and as you dug in and referred to Apple’s documentation for various functions, you discovered that 80% of them didn’t work property and had to use work arounds, or did not work at all? That would be completely unacceptable. The reality is that closed development platforms such as iOS or Flash provide developers with an enjoyable and predictable experience.  If a bug arises with a feature of the platform, you only have to find a work around for one platform, not several browsers on two different operating systems.  Furthermore Apple or Adobe fix these bugs quickly in next release of their runtimes.  In HTML5 you rely on multiple browser manufacturers to fix bugs or broken features and often this can take years. There are cases where Microsoft took as many as 10 years to fix a small issue. The development community eventually comes up with work arounds as you can see on html5please site, but what happens in the middle of a project when you discover a bug across multiple browsers that hasn’t been uncovered and solved by the development community?  Is everyone prepared to add weeks to a project timeline to accommodate such scenarios?

The HTML5 video tag is another good example of these headaches.  I’m going to single this out since so many of the award winning Flash sites of the past 5+ years have relied on video for the overall experience (Live Action and/or rendered video animations). And simply playing video in a self contained player is unarguably one of the core requirements of web sites, yet it is still extremely convoluted and time consuming to implement in HTML5.  Previously in Flash you simply rendered out one video file and loaded it in to play in your Flash video player.  It was guaranteed to work for 98% of desktop users.  Today with Mobile and HTML5 in the mix it is no longer so streamlined. Developer & author Robert Reinhardt recently wrote a blog post titled “The World of Pain that is HTML5 Video”  in which he discussed the issues with HTML5 video. At the core of it is the fact that the various browser vendors are pushing different encoding formats and there is no single format compatible with the current popular browsers; meaning you have to encode three different videos for desktop and then also mobile versions.  On a recent project we had roughly 30 different video animations in queue at any given time.  Having to encode three different versions of each, every time a creative revision came in, would have blown up our pipeline and caused us to miss deadlines.  You can just skim his blog post to get the idea of how complicated this issue is and in the end his conclusion is that currently the best strategy is Flash video on the desktop with fallback to HTML5, allowing you to encode in one format.  But this still relies on Flash to simplify things. If your site experience relies on using interactive or alpha channel video (pretty much anything other than playing video in a standard player), forget HTML5.  I personally know how complicated programming Flash video interactivity for a site like our www.bankrungame.com  can be and trying to do something like this in HTML5 will be 10 times more difficult; if not impossible in its current state.

Closing Thoughts

What we’ve tried to do is give a realistic look at what it will mean to target HTML5 for upcoming campaigns.  Based on the current buzz around it people may not have a clear idea of the challenges involved with working around its limitations.  You want to make sure you chose the right tool for the job. HTML5 is here to stay and often it will be the right tool. But if you try to force the technology on a project its not right for, it may come back to bite you.  Possibly via missed deadlines, budget overages, poor metrics due to limited compatibility, or a campaign that goes live full of bugs and a phone ringing off the hook with an upset client.

It may feel like overall tone of this article is negative on using HTML5.  That’s not the case, as we think it’s a great option for the majority of sites on the web. We simply aren’t excited about it as a definitive replacement for Flash.  HTML5 in its current state allows us to do less creatively with far more work, so we prefer the absolute creative freedom that platforms like Flash or iOS provide. We also don’t care about web standards.  Not to say they don’t have importance, but it is not what we are focused on. We are focused on concept, execution, and doing work that is motivating and enjoyable. Strategically we’ll continue to develop our HTML5 portfolio and use it when it makes business sense for or clients.  But we would be more excited about it if it allowed us to create end-user experiences that hadn’t already been possible at some time in the last decade.

Finally, here are a few logical guidelines when considering a strategy for new campaigns:

• Don’t decide on the technology until you figure out your audience. Is the primary target mobile or desktop? What percent of your audience is on HTML5 compatible browsers?
• Figure out your clients goals. Are they ok with you targeting a smaller audience for the sake of industry buzz and awards? Or are they more concerned with overall reach to consumers.
• Creatives concepting HTML5 sites need to learn more about the technology and limitations.  You can’t assume everything you would have concepted for a Flash targeted site will be possible in HTML5.  Especially if it is running on tablets and smart phones.
• If the goal is a highly interactive site on the desktop that will reach a maximum audience, use Flash.
• If a site uses interactive video and/or alpha channel video, use Flash and don’t expect the same type of experience to be possible on mobile.
• If the site only requires basic animations (think animating layers of a photoshop document) and video in contained players, use HTML5.
• Deep content/copy heavy portals, corporate sites, and blogs should be HTML. This has always been a good rule.
• If the same site needs to work on the desktop and tablet expect less (in terms of interactivity, animation, and innovative UX).
• If the same site needs to work on the desktop, tablet, and smart phones, expect a lot less.
• Be careful not to expect a robust HTML5 site be built on a tight timeline. Extra time will be needed for build and more importantly QA/bug fixes. i.e. Don’t plan on approving creative two weeks before a site needs to go live.
• Understand that not all HTML5 features are created equal. Some work on mobile, but not desktop. Some work on desktop, but not mobile.  WebGL is a good example.  Currently it is not enabled in mobile browsers and Internet Explorer on the desktop.

Gallery

The concept is pretty straightforward: Four cars line up to start a race. You, the user, are prompted to pick the winner. Whichever car is picked will ultimately win and you’re invited to compete in Sprint’s Summer Showdown for a chance to win some money… But what takes place between picking your car and crossing the finish line is a fun-filled 3d adventure.

We started by modeling and texturing the four cars:

Next, we got the cars ready for animation and Cinema 4d has a few tricks that really helped speed this up. Knowing the cars would be driving around the track, animating 4 tires on each car was going to be annoying. Using a simple Xpresso tag, we linked all of the tires’ rotations to one null object. This let us just animate the “spinner” and all of the tires would rotate at the same time. We also linked just the FRONT two tires to a separate null. That one controlled the tires turning left or right. So, animating 2 properties controlled the rate at which all of our tires turned and the direction the car was steering.

On just the body part of the car, we added a Vibrate Tag. This helpful little tool adds random motion to a variety of properties. We just added it to the body’s side to side rotation. As the car drove, this gave the body a subtle wobble that added realism to the animation.

Next, we placed our cars in our 3d environment and got their overall motion down. Once we have them traveling around the track at the proper pace (using good ole’ fashioned keyframing) we go back and refine the animation by adding in some of the aforementioned wobbles and imperfections.

The fun part came in setting up the camera moves. We wanted to use a variety of camera moves and angles to make this 15 second animation feel as energetic as possible. Using the Software Preview render mode, we were able to render out preview animations VERY fast. We could get something in front of our client quickly, before spending hours getting everything just right.

Here’s the last motion test before we went into final renders: http://www.silktricky.com/clients/goodby/sprint/showdown/showdown_motion_test.mov

Ready to move into final rendering, we refine the scene’s lighting, getting shadows correct and the car’s materials. There were many test renders of still frames to make sure things were feeling good.

After the final render, we move into After Effects for some compositing fun. Some overall color correction, motion blur, video copilot’s optical flares (which also makes some cool camera flashes in the background), and some smoke elements are all used to finish off the piece.)

BEFORE:

AFTER:

Finally, it’s time to “make it rain.” The final shot shows bills falling from the sky. Enter Trapcode Particular, which lets us executer this quickly and easily. (Note: The particle we generated was actually a pre-comp, rather than a static image. Inside of that pre-comp, we had the bill randomly fold and rotate to make it more realistic.)

We hope this was helpful to anyone wanting a closer look at this really cool banner. It really was a blast to make.

View Summer Showdown Expandable →

Gallery

View YouTube Masthead →

Our good friends at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners called us up with a simple request. The conversation went something like this:

Goodby: “Hello.. We have a simple request.”

SilkTricky: “Go on…”

Goodby: “To showcase the 3d video capabilities of the new Sprint Evo 3D, we’d like to create a YouTube takeover that plays our video in different pieces– a foreground and a background. These will move with parallax creating the illusion of depth.”

SilkTricky: “Piece of cake. Just send us over the green screen footage and we’ll get started.”

Goodby: “Actually, we’re repurposing it from a broadcast spot… So, it wasn’t shot on green screen.”

SilkTricky: “…”

< puts phone on MUTE >

SilkTricky: “..Shit.”

< takes phone off MUTE >

SilkTricky: “Cool. Send it over and we’ll see what we can do.”

After checking out the footage, it was all shot on a tripod with a central character who didn’t move around very much. Of course, we know this could always be rotoscoped. But, just thinking about rotoscoping 15 seconds made all of our collective hands start to cramp up. There had to be a better way…

Enter Adobe After Effects’ (relatively) new Roto Brush. With a few clicks, this tool guesses what you’re looking to cut out. It predicts multiple frames out from your starting point and carries your selection through, all the while moving and morphing with what it believes is your target. Scrubbing through your frames, if your matte gets too far off, you can make quick adjustments by adding to or subtracting from your selection and it updates previous frames with this new information.

Almost like the Magic Wand in Photoshop, but somehow smarter.. and for video.

Now, we are immediately skeptical of any new software feature that claims this kind of magic, so we didn’t have very high hopes for the results. But we were pleasantly surprised.

To get a good matte, you really want to get through almost all of your frames. But, making tweaks takes seconds per frame, rather than minutes. A roto job that may have taken 2 days is done in an hour, and done pretty well. After you’re happy with your matte, you “freeze” it in After Effects. From there, you can farther refine it by feathering it, choking it, adding motion blur to the edges, etc.

This all looks even better because the end target was for a banner. The 1080p video is shrunk down about 75%, so any roughness around the edges is virtually unnoticeable.

And away go the troubles down the drain…

You can check out the banner here. You might even think it was shot on green screen…

Welcome to the new SilkTricky.com. We decided it was finally time to show you what we’ve been up to. The last iteration of our site was done over two years ago. Then we got busy. Really busy. The company site fell to the back burner, which prompted many people to ask us, “Hey are you guys still in business?”

Why don’t you stop judging and take a look for yourself. We’ve got a lot of pretty pictures and videos for you to look at. And if you have the time (and have had a few drinks…well…several drinks…well..if you’re close to blacking out) then read the write-ups. Because that’s the same process we took when we were writing them.

Like it? Like it a lot? Love it? Love it more than anything? Look, whatever it is you’re feeling, let us know what you think. Send us an email and sign it from “anonymous.” We promise we won’t look at the “From” email address info.

Cats. Most are fickle, bitchy, loners. I have a lot in common with cats and that’s why when this project came across our desk, we just had to win it. Find out what it sounds like when you make sweet music from the hissing, purring, scratching, jumping and thumping of a symphony of cats.

You know what else it sounds like? Did you ever go to the Webby’s and right after they announce a category winner, listen closely to the table of the agency that didn’t win? Yeah. That’s right. Sixteen cats. And they’re pissed. We just saved you a trip to the Webby’s. Not like you got nominated anyway. Losers.

Sprint Nexus S 4G >

2009 SilkTricky Reel

Look we aren’t proud. It hasn’t been updated since 2009, but it has explosions. Yes, EXPLOSIONS!

Here at SilkTricky we like to think of this old Reel like fine aged wine. And one day we’ll update it and then it’ll just be considered moldy old cheese. Enjoy for now…

More Silky Fun

SilkTricky Battle Reel >

SilkTricky Website V1 >

SilkTricky Website V2 >

Gallery

Gallery