Kurchar 3-D starring Brenda Contreras

After some set back I finally got to shooting the much needed pixie scene for the 3-D Kuchar film I'm working on.  I was supposed to shoot with someone else who ended up having scheduling issues.

So, instead I shot with the young and talented Brenda Contreras - filmmaker, curator and Angelino living in NYC.  She was visiting the Bay Area last week and we got to talking about the project.  I mentioned how I needed a performer and I wanted to keep the project in the same style as Mike Kuchar's other films - namely using non-actors to perform and often the performers are filmmakers or artists and so his films end up being an eclectic mix of cameos.

Brenda agreed and she made her way out to my place in Oakland and we spent a couple hours shooting on a green screen.  She was very accommodating allowing me to spray her with sparkle spray and stand in the sun for a few hours.

The picture above is a screen shot with some very primitive and basic photoshop work to give you an idea of what it will look like in the end.  It's still far from the final version.

During shooting the encouraging line was "you look just like Bjork!"

More to come soon.

Kuchar in 3-D

So, a couple years ago the Hollywood King of 3-D, Ray Zone, gave the Godfather of Queer Cinema, Mike Kuchar, a 3-D camera. Let me take a little step back. Ray Zone was probably the single biggest advocate for Stereoscopic 3-D imaging that could ever be compiled in a living being. He was very positive, loveable and really interested in everything you had to say.

I was opening my semi-secret gallery and screening space in the dark corner of Skid Row in LA. My very first film screening was a selection of Mike Kuchar's videos. I flew him to LA and set him up in my apartment/gallery. It was his first time to LA in almost 3 decades. It was a great show with a full house including Mr. Ray Zone. I believe it was the first time Ray had seen Mike's work, but he knew of Mike's reputation. Ray being the generous person that he is and also always trying to spread the gospel of 3D gave Mike the new Fuji W3 Finepix 3D camera telling Mike that he "just wanted to see what he would do with it".

Mike graciously accepted the camera and when he returned to his home, San Francisco, he began making plans to start on a new project. Mike shot a few scenes with some of his regular stars, but at a certain point he simply had to abandon the project. You must understand, Mike is a very traditional filmmaker. Sometime in the 80's he transitioned from film to video and later still he transitioned to digital video tape. All of these processes are radically different and each transition took many years for him to master. Now, in his 70's, he seems reluctant to make the transition to digital video files (SD card) based footage. This is due mostly to the fact that he has no computer and no way of editing the footage.

The camera sat on the shelf with the footage for months. It sat as Mike witnessed his brother, George, fight his battle with cancer and lose. It sat for another year when Ray unexpectedly suffered a heart attack and left us with endless questions.

Eventually, Mike decided to give me the camera. He knew I worked in 3D and lucky for us all the footage that Mike shot was still on the card in the camera.

I started working on the footage, but quickly realized that even though the W3 camera is revolutionary in putting 3D easily into the hands of anyone it still has many bugs. With this camera there is a problem with the alignment of the two images and for 3D that is an enormous problem. It's basically the difference between seeing 3-D and giving everyone a headache. So, I spend much time fixing the footage to prepare it for editing.

Now I am finally at the stage of editing. It's still going to take more time, but for now I have a few images for you to see - to be viewed in anaglyph (red-blue) glasses.  Not perfect, but getting there.

Movie palaces

Well, I'm already behind in my project for the Echo Park Film Center's LA AIR (artist in residence) program.  I have until Feb 28th to make a film.  I'm working with my buddy Ale again and he's made a great soundtrack.
I've shot just about everything I need (I think) and I'm editing.  I had to scrap the idea of shooting entirely on Single-8 fuji film, but I still shot some stuff on Single-8 and I'm waiting for it to get back to me.  Yet, I have to say every day that passes I'm less hopeful I'll get the footage in time to use it (and I even gave them a cool Kodachrome pin when I returned my footage - Retro8.com have been a huge hassle).

Well, now I am editing and thinking how daunting all my animation and FX work will be.  I want to add all the missing marquee sign and neon lights to what is up to 7 minutes of footage, but will likely be closer to 10 minutes.

These are the images I'm referencing.  The theatres include the Mason, Orpheum, Loew's State, the Philharmonic Auditorum, Olympic and Tower (during the Newsreel days).

Philharmonic Auditorum

Philharmonic Auditorum

Orpheum

The Philharmonic Auditorum has one of the most elaborate signs and lights of any of the downtown LA movie palaces.  It's actually really hard to tell from some pictures but the roof top sign is shifted back by about 20 feet and on the East most building and so it's just right of where you would enter and all the lights go up the building.  A little strangely positioned.

The Orpheum was originally a Vaudville house.  And the rooftop marquee used to have that in the title.  It also used to face both East and West because the old Central Station where people would get off after spending the last 3 days traveling from New York, Chicago or somewhere else was located directly East of here.  In the 30's Union Station was built where Chinatown was, Chinatown moved and so did a lot of interest in entertainment and business.  Lucky enough the Orpheum was restored and looks amazing.  But the "Vaudville" part is gone.

 The State used to be called "Loew's State".  Yes, the same as the Loew's theatre chain originally established by Marcus Loew.  The building used to have a sign that ran up to the top and a couple different entrances with signs directing you to them.  It was quite elaborate.

 The Mason was originally an Opera House back at the turn of the last century.  Later it became the first cinema in LA to be exclusively Mexican Cinema.  Now?  It's that giant hole of a block next to the LA Times building - ugly, stupid and anything would be better then that...even a parking lot!

A less remembered cinema, was not on the Broadway strip, but still interesting and found itself in a few movies over the decades.  The marquee is still there.  The building facade has changed (for the better), but the marquee is painted almost completely black.  It seems obvious that the owner wants to get rid of it.  Kinda sad.

 This is a quick mock up of how I want to put the Loew's State together.

And here is a postcard I made and came out with a nice fake neon and florescent glow look that I'm going to use for the actual film.

So, I have a lot of work ahead and I might not finish in time, but I think whatever I do get done will be amazing.

Obituary for the LA City Market

For those who don't know. The most amazing complexes in the entire city of LA is the City Market of Los Angeles. This is the long giant two square block complex of loading docks that appears to be at least 80 years of age. Surrounded by San Pedro, 9th, 11th and San Julian streets the complex is one of the most negelected, over used and amazing constructs. More then anything this building represents the beauty of collective construction, neglect and pieced together necessity. More specifically the entire place was originally used for loading and unloading of goods. Huge trucks would move in and out during the peak of it's life time.  There were a few major accidents and thousands of minor accidents most were left as is and only a few times did the owners decide to try fix any damage done.

It was originally build to house businesses and make it easy for trucks, vans and other vehicles move in and out.  Chances are there were at least a few dozen deaths and maybe even one or two murders within the life of the premises.  It also appears that there there a few different parts of the building that once had extensions to it.  Therefore, there are some walls and doors that were once interior, but for some reason or other a part of the building needed to come down and now the wall or door was exposed to the outside world when it was not intended to.
The image to the right is a perfect example of a walk-in fridge door that was no longer in use and mix of laziness necessity to keep the door permanently closed someone decided to use a 2x4 to block it off and the need to mask the wall as much as possible by painting it the light camouflage green in order to conceal the door just enough so that people won't casually notice.  In a way this turns into that "truth is stranger than fiction" or I would call it "accident is more beautiful than art".  What artists in their right mind would even think of creating a door and even creating a door in such a fashion?  And yet I have never seen anything so beautiful.

So, now in it's latter years with an inch thick layer or rust and it's 10th coat of paint the owners have decided to tear it down.  It's age has reached the eclipsing point where the asphalt that was crudely added in the 60's or 70's has worn away enough for the elegant tiled brick ground to peak through and just a tiny amount of the old railway has shown through as well.  Now the complex if half gone.  The amazing Art Deco sign has turned in to a vulgar Billboard and the cranes have already ripped apart the entire north corridor of the complex.

In speaking with one of the owners I mentioned that this is one of my favorite places in LA he replied "Ya, but it's unsafe."  And it was the most obvious explanation that made me realize and masochism of my aesthetic appreciation.  Reason why I love this place is 1) because if has an old classic look to it (in a strange way it's like being in Italy - but this is a totally different time period) and 2) it's totally neglected.  There were hundreds of thousands of decisions that lead to people decided to clean something up either in a half-assed fashion or deciding not to fix something at all!  AND this is the very reason why it must be destroyed.  There is simply no way for this space to be usable and safe.  It's like an old dog that you love, but it's so old that it's body hurts by just existing.  You can't be so selfish to keep it around when it's in so much pain.  It must be euthanized.  Still, I'll always wish I had more time with it.

When I first saw that space I knew I wanted to have a crazy huge installation of art, video projections, DJ's - just one crazy huge festival of art and music. Certainly, the best time to visit is night. Unfortunately, that will have to be left to my dreams.

Good-bye, old friend.

Documentation of the disappearance of the most beautiful structure in LA

Can you spot what is missing from the right side that's in the left?
This is probably my favorite spot in the whole world. I've been shooting here for quite a while and one day I came along and noticed that the most beautiful piece of this area is now gone.

Broadway Bridge example

Here is a fairly simple example I did with some footage I shot the other night riding over the Broadway bridge.  I used After Effects stabilizer because the footage from riding my bike is extremely erratic.  I'm also using temp music from Languis.  I will want to work with them once this project gets more legs (and hopefully funding so I can pay them), but I'll also want to work with other ambient music artists as well.  But I think it works really well.  There's just a couple parts where the AE stabilizer just completely fails that I'd like to fix up.

More to come.

"East" texts and info

This new project is all about different parts of LA that are over looked.  I am currently calling "East" and the other day I had an explosion of ideas about what I want to shoot and how I want to put it together.

I will open with the following quote from Robert Smithson from his article "A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey":
 "Picture in your mind's eye [a] sand box divided in half with black sand on one side and white sand on the other.  We take a child and have him run hundreds of times clockwise in the box until the sand gets mixed and begins to turn grey; after that we have him run anti-clockwise, but the result will not be a restoration of the original division but a greater degree of greyness and an increase of entropy."

Then I want to follow that with this text that I wrote the other day:
"Just as popular media neglects important topics, under represented people and identities it also neglects places.  In the most photographed city in the world there are endless miles that are rarely if ever exposed to the world.  This area is know as East LA."

I made these notes:
Show multiple scenes & places and between each location have a matching shot - i.e. from Vernon zoom into the Sears Building then cut to Sears and neighborhood.

each location ~ 5 min
~ 120 min in total
24 locations
19 locations and 5 interludes

Interludes timelapse x2 timelapse 1: night, lights, driving cars timelapse 2: sunrise/set etc 2nd Street Tunnel 6th St bridge tunnel chopper ride over LA ($ permitting) Blueline ride

Locations Vernon Chinatown Watts - Inglewood downtown - Bway theatres Santa Fe and Train yard LA River Sears Building (Boyle Heights) Fashion District Jefferson Park (empty hotels) Griffith Park - abandoned Zoo Little Tokyo Highland Park El Sereno Monterey Park Baldwin Park Linclon Heights Olvera St Cypress Park El Monte Skid Row

I also forgot to mention that I'm planning on shooting as much as possible by bicycle (or hand held) and then later stabilizing it (there is soo much jittering on a bicycle it doesn't look very good).  I want to make this film in the most alternative way possible.  I never want to be in too much control of the scenery (unlike Hollywood that wants to lock off every bit of our world), use as little dirty energy as possible and do this almost completely by myself.  I hope to have some friends help me shoot. Mostly cause I'm afraid of shooting with a $1K camera in some of these areas all alone.  This is usually how I make things and it's not exactly a new technique, but often people use the term do-it-yourself to try and get away with poor looking productions.

Here is an example that I shot a few weeks ago on the Blueline train going north.

Dandelion design

without shadows

Just finished with modeling, texturing and "furring" my latest model of a dandelion.  This will contain the same colors and shapes as the other design - cyan, violate, white and orange as well as cubes, spheres and cones.

However, I am having some issues that I need to work out.  I like the shadows I get on the ground, but you can see there are some shadows that the fur picks up that looks bad.  I don't know how to separate that out.

"fur" with shadows

There's no way to "unlink" lights to fur like you can other objects and you're supposed to be able to separate that out in rendering under the fur and/or light attributes, but I don't see it (I think that's a new addition and I'm using Maya 2009...cause I'm poor).

It looks like I'm going to have to work this out in compositing.  Last time I did shadows separate I had a hard time working it out.  So, something new to learn.

Also, the rendering times are pretty extreme.  The last model had about 30 seconds of rendering time per frame (that was full HD).  These renders were just for 640x480 (less then 1/4 of HD) and fur without shadows took 1 minute 13 seconds and 2 minutes 40 with fur.  Separating them out in comp will fix that, but I still need to figure out how to make it all shorter.

cyan "petals" with violate "fur" - rejected idea

Another thing I was trying was using different colors on the fur then what is on the geometry.  It looks kind of interesting, but I don't think it looks quite right.

Well, there's still a long way to go.  I just have two models rigged and ready for animation.  By the end I'm a little worried about rendering times and more worried about having too much geometry for Maya to even run without crashing constantly.

On another note, I just have to add how frustrating it is that what I am doing is extremely complex and for "experimental cinema" it's quite advanced, but even at this stage in the animation and VFX world this is really low tech.  Not to mention how in the experimental cinema world they don't care too much for animation of this kind.

Garden test #2

So, I spent a whole bunch of time writing out a complex series of expressions.  For those who don't animate digitally that's basically kind of like programming - writing mathematical equations that set relationships between different things.
Basically what I wanted was to have the parts of the flowers grow to their full form, but I didn't want to animate each cube or sphere or anything.  So, I made a simple circle (that is invisible) so that when it's at 0 degrees all the objects are at the same place and I rotate the circle to 180 degrees all the cubes and etc are in their final place.

This took about three full days to write the expressions, but it took only an hour or so to animate.  You can see the picture here is basically what I had to write, but keep in mind this is only 1/4 of the entire thing.  I couldn't get it all in one image cause it's too long.

But it turned out really great looking in the animation.  Also, the nice thing is one series of expressions like this creates 12 flowers because changing color or shape doesn't require any different expression.  However I still have 7 more series of expressions to go through and that's just for the flowers.  I haven't even started planning out the bushes, trees and waterfalls.  I have a feeling that this is going to be an extremely heavy scene.  Having too many objects can cause my computer to chug along slowly cause I don't have the top of the line computers nor a render farm like huge studios do.

In any case, here it is.

The F-Word

A letter in response to the article "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling" by Gendy Alimurung in the LA Weekly Vol 34 no 21

Dear Gendy Alimurung,

                I don't need to tell you that your article last week on the "death of film" was quite striking.  It sent a fire storm across the city and across the world amongst movie makers and film enthusiasts in all corners.  First, let me congratulate you on a great article.  This is possibly the most in depth coverage on the complexity of film across the spectrum and it's addressing a huge problem by bringing it to a wider audience.  Yet, I have many concerns with some of the topics and conclusions you take on.  I hope you will bear with me for a moment as I try to explain things from a bit of a different side.  I think you might enjoy my conclusion, but I have a few things I need to go over before I get to it.

                I am a movie maker and even though I'm no Christopher Nolan I still have quite a lot of experience with both film and digital video.  I spent 10 years as a cinema projectionist, which included everything from reel-to-reel projection to DCP 3-D presentation.  I studied film and animation at NYU and USC, respectively.  And during my undergrad it was obvious to me that film was going the way of the dodo bird, which is why I focused on analog filmmaking, editing and presentation.  When I continued on into animation in my grad studies I decided to focus considerably more on the digital aspect of movie making.  I've worked for three different film archives - one in New York City and two in Los Angeles and I've worked with Mark Toscano, archivist at the Academy Film Archives, collaborating on film and digital moving image projects.

                There are many experts on both sides of the coin with respect to film or digital video, but I am probably one of the few that has such intricate expertise in both areas.  I have worked with every aspect of movie making from negative cutting to motion capture. I love film, but I love digital as well.  Just as there is a huge sea of possibilities in film it is the same in digital movie making.

               Digital movie making is not bad.  I know you never explicitly state this, but there is a strong undertone in this film vs. digital argument that always ends up with film enthusiasts often not realizing that they are film ONLY enthusiasts.  This segregates the market and only hurts both worlds.  My decision to work in digital is just as valid as someone else's decision to work with film.

                This is an old argument and for the past 12 years that I have worked in this world all across the country people have been telling me that film is dead.  David James used to hold an annual "Death of Cinema" conference at USC.  Dozens of filmmakers have announced the "death of film" including Peter Greenaway who dated it to be 1983 with the invention of the remote controller.  Susan Sontag announced the "death of cinephilia" and therefore "the death of the movie" in her article "A Century of Cinema" in 1995 (ironically this is about the time I was learning to become a cinephile).  I was once laughed at by a salesman of B&H when I called to ask about 16mm film equipment who replied that "film was a dead medium" and I should "get up to date with the times".

                Any film enthusiast will go out of their way to tell you how ugly video looks when compared to film in a similar fashion to Roberta Hill in the documentary "Cinemania".  This argument is usually a 4 pronged approach:

1.       Digital does not look as good as film

2.       Digital is much easier than film

3.       You can just shoot and shoot an shoot and not think about digital, but film is very precise and thought out

4.       Digital has poor preservation capabilities

                To each of these arguments I strongly emphasize that whoever is making the statement really does not have a well rounded knowledge of the entire discipline of movie making. 

1.       Your specific example of DVD is absolutely correct.  Watching a DVD (or a VHS or a Betacam) looks terrible on a huge screen.  Home video formats were never meant to be shown in a cinema.  The same could be said for 8mm film.  And if Cinefamily still has the same Christie Roadster projector that they did a couple years ago when I held an event there then you are correct in stating that the blacks are not black, there's little detail, etc.  That projectors highest capabilities are displaying a resolution of 1280x1024 (that's only if they are connecting via the best capabilities possible).  That's not even full 1080p HD let alone 2K or 4K.  If you're looking for a great indie theatre to watch digital in LA you should go to the Downtown Independent.

        However, it is a completely valid aesthetic decision to choose digital rather than film.  There is no way you can convince me that the original TRON looks better then TRON: Legacy.  I love the original and if you show it to me it better be on 35mm, but one is not better than the other simply because one was shot on film and the other on digital.  I projected Miranda July's "Me and You and Everyone We Know" when it premiered at the grand opening of the IFC Center in New York City.  It was shot on HDCam and we projected it on two formats one was HDCam and the other was 35mm and the HDCam was far more beautiful!

2.       I've worked in Super 8, 16mm, 35mm, miniDV, HD digital video files and with entirely computer generated (CG) moving images.  To say that one of the mediums is easier or harder then another is totally and completely related to context.  Just the other day I was rendering an image from a CG animation package where each frame took 1.5 minutes to output.  So I am very jealous of filmmakers that can just drop their films off at FotoKem and return the next day to watch their dailies.  Sometimes it takes weeks for me to render (aka export) the animation I work with.  The last film I made took me over a year to get just a simple three minute digital movie finished.

3.       When I shoot with my Digital SLR I can only afford a couple SD cards that are fast enough to shoot video.  On them you can only capture 12 minutes of footage at a time and the SD cards are somewhat equivalent to going out and shooting with 8 or 10 rolls of film.  So, I am absolutely conscious of what I shoot.  Every frame!   I am not the only filmmaker who works like this.  There was a huge problem with video tape, especially analog and miniDV/DVcam, but it's changed dramatically.  This change is absolutely for the better.  People should be more conscious of what they shoot.

4.       Archiving is an extremely problematic area and the biggest problem is that most archivists don't like, understand nor want to deal with digital.  So, it's no wonder no one was going to Pixar with "Toy Story" and saying - "We need to learn from the sorted history of early cinema by preserving this footage properly".  Film had the same problem.  "Metropolis" has an endless history of restoration. F.W. Murnau's  "4 Devils" is completely lost to history. Even the original print of "Citizen Kane" was lost in a fire.  The best avenue to preserve is still, admittedly, on film.  But digital archiving has so much potential.

Your report that digital file formats have changed 20 different formats in 10 years is actually an understatement.  I can count more than 10 formats that I can export right now from Final Cut Pro, but if you're thinking about a self contained movie file (as most are, including the writers of the Digital Dilemma 2) then you are thinking about it all wrong.

Film is a series of still images put together and the best way to store a digital movie is the same way - with an "image sequence" or a series of still pictures numbered in order from the first frame to the last.  You can open up a photoshop image format document now that was made 10 years ago with no problems as long as there is no corruption.

File corruption is also a big problem - and "you can't stick it on a shelf and forget about it" holds just as true with film as it does digital.  Film cannot be stored on reels, it must be stored on plastic cores in a plastic can and often the core breaks and the film sags and becomes warped all because someone left it and forgot about it.  Film must be cleaned and prepared if it is ever to be shown.  We absolutely need to get better organized with digital as well and I hope we will find more and more archivists willing to work with us on that front.

                Digital movie making is extremely important.  I say this as a lover of film.  Frankly, I do not trust a movie maker that has never worked with film.  Especially if that individual's job relates to Cinematography, Editing or Directing.  However, digital is a wonderful new world that I really love to explore.  The problem is that these two worlds are not as exclusive as some might declare.

                I tell you this because I want to save film!  George Lucas' choice to use digital is just as valid as Nolan's choice to use film.  My friend and filmmaker Rick Bahto still uses Super 8 (S8) and really only S8 and occasionally Regular 8 (R8).  As he should!  My other friend, Beth Block, used to work on film and sometime in the 80's or early 90's she had to turn her back to it because of the expense and she stopped making movies all together.  Now she has graced the world with her amazing images once again, but she will only use full 1080 HD or higher (if possible) and she refuses to show on anything but HD projection.

  It is time that we completely change this dichotomy.

                I will explain my solution with a story.  Recently George Lucas donated a huge amount of money to the USC cinema school.  I was in the process of receiving my MFA in animation at the time.  Almost all of that money went into the new Lucas building that was completed about four years ago.  Three famous individuals who donated a significant amount were leading a lot of the decision making about how the money was spent - George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis.  Rumor goes that Lucas and Zemeckis wanted the ONLY digital projection in the entire building, but Spielberg was emphatic about having at least one 35mm projector in the main theatre hall, the Ray Stark Family Theatre (aka Lucas 108).  Lucas and Zemeckis were eventually convinced and to all our benefit we are able to view 35mm film at the USC theatre.

                Just as these friends came together to find a great solution we must do the same.  We should not be divided by our differences, but united in our struggle to make and watch movies!  I call on all digital movie makers to help our brothers and sisters in arms who want to work on film.

                They are getting rid of film projectors.  At an old theatre I used to work at in San Jose, CA I recently heard from an old colleague that they just went all digital (12 screens and no film).  This is a crime!  But we cannot solve it by trying to convince people to choose a side.  Cinefamily should not be punished for refusing to install a DCP system! 

                I admit that the scale has tipped too strongly toward digital in recent years.  We need to rebalance - film and digital video are equal in my eyes.  We must unify digital movie makers and filmmakers.  I ask filmmakers to respect and understand the benefits of working in digital and likewise for digital movie makers to respect film.  But how can we really help?

                The answer is so simple.  We need to join forces and attack things at the source.  Don't go to cinemas that have only digital and no film.  Don't use distribution houses that refuses to make film prints.  If a studio forces a Director or Director of Photography to go digital then call on the other directors and DP's to shout it out in the streets. 

                We can come up with a list of institutions.  However, I don't like black lists.  Instead let's have a gold list of preferred theatres and companies to use that are film friendly.  You don't have to work in film to go to them, but in order to make sure our cinema legacy is sustained we need to make sure certain kinds of institutions are supported.

                Just a couple LA theatres on my Gold List are the Echo Park Film Center, USC's Ray Stark Family and Norris Theatres, the Egyptian, the Downtown Independent, the Hammer Museum's Billy Wilder, LACMA's Bing Center, the Academy's Linwood Dunn theatre, RedCat,  the Aero, the New Beverly, the Kodak and, of course, Cinefamily's Silent Movie Theatre.  That's just to name a few and I want to come up with a whole beautiful list from across the world and across the spectrum of film making.

                As an extremely low-budget DIY filmmaker I specifically ONLY purchase Kodak or Fuji SD cards to use in my digital camera because I want them to keep making film too.  This is rather difficult to keep up with because Kodak keeps changing their direction, but whatever their position might be I'm still supporting them as long as they support film.

                This is not the only solution.  I hope others can add to this list and come up with great ideas as well.  I should not be alone to help my comrades in their struggle.  And really, it's my struggle as well.  I am ashamed to say it, but I have still never seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" on film - (35 or 70mm).  I will one day, but there will always be another film to replace that one.  And you never completely understand a film meant to be watched on 35mm without seeing it on 35mm.

                Please feel free to contact me about this topic.  I always enjoy a great conversation about the art of the moving image medium.

Cordially,

Huckleberry Lain