>>6514406

Wondering why I should go with that weird version when there was the same short clip uploaded here yesterday (or the day before) in much better quality?

Plus, I must have missed where it came from originally (i.e. original source) ….

Anyone feel like helping out a dumb anon?

>>6514617

>device is now a bit "different"

Not mine for sure ….

But here's the link to yesterday's post with the more flawless version.

>>6509097 (pb)

(Really wondering why some famefags had to blow it up by making the focus window wiggle along the screen and put their name on it!)