Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  SD DVD - Film and Documentary  ›  MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

#1
Rating: 0
2/8/08 at 4:31pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71
Now that Warners has announced that all of their upcoming classic releases will soon be available day and date on standard DVD as well as on Blu-ray, maybe they could reconsider how their Ultra-Panavision & MGM Camera 65 titles are handled.

I realize that certain members of the Home Theater Forum want these films to be transferred at their full 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, this results in a very narrow image on a standard TV set, and it doesn't look that much better on a 50 or 60" widescreen set. Not to mention that many of us simply can't afford a bigger screen.

Please keep in mind that these films were all shot with cropping in mind. Even during their first runs in high-end 70mm theatres, many cinemas couldn't handle this extreme ratio and had to crop the image to fit their screens.

When these films went into general 35mm release in 2.35:1 scope, many theatres cropped the picture even more. A 2:1 picture was, and still is, displayed in some theatres. To top it all, the current 70mm edition of Ben-Hur has been printed in the standard 2.2:1 ratio. Is anyone complaining?

Why not provide 2 versions of these films on one DVD? One in 2.76:1 and an alternative version in 2.35:1 or at the very least in 2.55:1? It's a good bet that more copies would sell, since many people find the extremely narrow picture a real turnoff.
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
2/8/08 at 8:31pm
  • Joined: July 2006
  • Location: Toronto
  • Post Count: 261

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Because theres no market for a cropped version thats still significantly letterboxed.
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
2/8/08 at 11:59pm
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Post Count: 407

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

There is a thread about Vittorio Storaro and "the last emperor" a few thread's down in which there are a significant number of people annoyed that this, and all of his other works, "including apocalypse now", are cropped from around 2.35:1 to 2:1 on home video. Cropping UP 70/MGM 65 even from 2.76:1 to 2.35:1 is loosing exactly the same amount of info, ie quite a bit.

In the case of Mr Storaro it's his film, he painted it with light and if he wants to chop of a portion of it, fine. But in the case of ben hur, fall of the roman empire and many other's the cinematographer's and directors are long gone. So asking an arbitrary telecine operator and archivist to crop .35 from ben-hur is a bit like asking david hockney which bit of the last supper shall we chop off. Ie it's his opinion and cannot be considered artisticly valid regardless of his skill in the field, as he had nothing to do with composing it in the first place.

It also means a full width telecine need's to be done and then the image cropped from that, requiring another telecine session - given that most UP film's are 3-4 hours long that could be 3 days to a week at a lot of money per hour! Is this really a good use of WB's etc money?

I look at UP/MGM 65 the other way, it only affects a few title's and makes the image stand out even more as it is a diferent shape, thus artistically giving it a different feel.

So to sum up, it's generally a bad idea!
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 2:22am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Post Count: 1,645

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

I think 2.76:1 should be the prefered ratio for Ultra Panavision films because it encourages transfers from 70mm elements.

Sure a 35mm based transfer could be butched down to 2.76:1 (by cropping the top). But generally if a studio knows that we want 2.76:1 transfers for U.P. films, then that will encourage them to master from the 70mm element. Which in turn will ensure the best quality for future presentations.
Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 6:35am
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Post Count: 622

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

There were ten titles filmed in this process. So far, these four titles have been released on DVD in 2.76:1.

Ben-Hur
Mutiny of the Bounty
The Greatest Story Ever Told
Battle if the Bulge

Four were released cropped:

How The West Was Won - only selected scenes in Ultra Panavison
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Hallelujah Trail
Khartoum

Three will be released or re-released in 2008/2009 but we don't know yet if they will be cropped:

Raintree County
How The West Was Won
The Fall of the Roman Empire

I'm assuming How The West Was Won will be in Smilebox showing the full 3-strips and would be 2.6:1 if not in Smilebox.

Raintree County was only released in 35mm 2.35:1 but we might get 2.76:1 on dvd.

Fall of The Roman Empire was released in 35mm 2.35:1 and 70mm 2.2:1 so it might be cropped on dvd.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com

Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 7:20am
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Does no one on this forum understand about cropping of images? Spherically photographed 35mm films have guidelines for 1.85 cropping in the camera's viewfinder. I thought most of us who read these forums are annoyed if these films are shown full frame instead of cropped. Ultra-Panavision has similar guidelines in the viewfinder so that these films can be printed as standard 35 or 70mm prints.

This ultra wide format was originally developed by MGM so that they could produce sharper reduction prints in standard 35mm scope format as well as standard or ultra-wide 70mm versions. The extra width of the image the system provided was to allow 3 projector Cinerama prints to be generated from this special negative. The correct composition is the one defined by the guidelines in the viewfinder.
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 8:47am
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Post Count: 407

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Yes I understand perfectly that the DP could have, and probably did, bear in mind during photography that at some point the image may be reduced in size - especially on a 35mm print.

But the format they shot in is 2.76:1, the image photographed is that wide and they are not around to ask whether they have a problem with the full ratio or not. Ben hur looks superb in it's full 2.76:1 and cropping it wouldn't make the experience any better.

As Roland says, it affects 10 films, so I don't really see it being an issue regardless of your screen size, unless you watch dvd's on a 14" TV and these are the only 10 films you ever watch on it!

M
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 9:25am
  • Joined: July 2006
  • Location: Toronto
  • Post Count: 261

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Jon, just because the camera groundglass has protection for other ratios it does not mean it was used or intended. Groundglasses (ie the camera eyepiece) sometimes have extra guides and safelines but they are seldom used, especially back then since they today are mostly used for TV protection, and we must assume that 35mm protection was not used unless it can be demonstrated that it was.
Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 10:59am
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Location: Lacombe, AB
  • Post Count: 2,550

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Roland, isn't HTWWW 3 strip Cinerama with some plates shot in Camera 65? Other than that, I take no issue with your list.

EDIT: Never mind, I went back and reread your post, but those selected scenes were originally presented in 3 strip, correct?

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 11:58am
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

The groundglass marking were always used when shooting films in 65mm anamorphic widescreen. Without it, important action would have been missing in almost every theatre (35 or 70mm) on the face of the earth. Look it up in an old American Cinematographer manual - if you can find one. Or better still, check out Martin Hart's superb website: widescreenmuseum.com for more information.
Export to Wiki
#11
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 12:13pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Yes I understand perfectly that the DP could have, and probably did, bear in mind during photography that at some point the image may be reduced in size - especially on a 35mm print.

But the format they shot in is 2.76:1, the image photographed is that wide and they are not around to ask whether they have a problem with the full ratio or not. Ben hur looks superb in it's full 2.76:1 and cropping it wouldn't make the experience any better.

As Roland says, it affects 10 films, so I don't really see it being an issue regardless of your screen size, unless you watch dvd's on a 14" TV and these are the only 10 films you ever watch on it!

M
But most 1.85 35mm films that are photographed with spherical lenses end up with an image that fills the entire 1.37 frame. They use guidelines in the viewfinder to help them compose their images for cropped projection onto a wide screen. In many instances the original filmmakers are no longer around to ask if 1.85 was really the ratio the movie should be shown in. Does this mean that we should then project the entire frame just because the image fills the whole frame? The same thing applies to Camera 65 and Ultra-Panavision.
Export to Wiki
#12
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 12:35pm
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Post Count: 407

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

You are comparing two different things.

All 1.85:1 films made since the academy ratio was abandoned around 1953 were shot for 1.85:1 theatrical exhibition. Some theater's may put the exhibition masking plates in the wrong place, some telecines may also put these in the wrong place - eg the back to future recall of a few years ago, but generally speaking they line up the marks and off they go.

UP films on the other hand have a 2.76:1 negative, that can be masked, but it can also be shown full width. Unlike 1.85:1 there aren't boom mics, actors feet or sfx equipment that the masking hides, it is all extra picture area that can be seen without any detriment to the viewing experience.

UP offers very few advantages over standard 65mm Super Panavision in terms of the image quality it can offer to 35mm reduction prints, so they must have used this ultra-wide format for a reason other than that, as to use these huge bulky camera's on location and in the kind of action set pieces these film's provide it would not have been easy.

So as seeing it in 2.76:1 doesn't hurt the picture in any way, unlike viewing a 1.85:1 film in academy, then I fail to see the point of cropping it.

M
Export to Wiki
#13
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 2:08pm
  • Joined: July 2006
  • Location: Toronto
  • Post Count: 261

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt
The groundglass marking were always used when shooting films in 65mm anamorphic widescreen. Without it, important action would have been missing in almost every theatre (35 or 70mm) on the face of the earth. Look it up in an old American Cinematographer manual - if you can find one. Or better still, check out Martin Hart's superb website: widescreenmuseum.com for more information.

What I'm saying is that its not necessarily shot with protection for 35mm in mind.
Export to Wiki
#14
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 2:13pm
  • Joined: July 2006
  • Location: Toronto
  • Post Count: 261

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt
But most 1.85 35mm films that are photographed with spherical lenses end up with an image that fills the entire 1.37 frame. They use guidelines in the viewfinder to help them compose their images for cropped projection onto a wide screen. In many instances the original filmmakers are no longer around to ask if 1.85 was really the ratio the movie should be shown in. Does this mean that we should then project the entire frame just because the image fills the whole frame? The same thing applies to Camera 65 and Ultra-Panavision.

No, films were composed for the theater. And back then--there was no such thing as home video; the theater WAS the movie. The open-matte process is just a shooting technicality, its not meant for compositional purposes. It should be assumed that an open-matte film is intended as whatever ratio it was matted to, unless its explicitly expressed by the DP or director.
Export to Wiki
#15
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 2:28pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
You are comparing two different things.

All 1.85:1 films made since the academy ratio was abandoned around 1953 were shot for 1.85:1 theatrical exhibition. Some theater's may put the exhibition masking plates in the wrong place, some telecines may also put these in the wrong place - eg the back to future recall of a few years ago, but generally speaking they line up the marks and off they go.

UP films on the other hand have a 2.76:1 negative, that can be masked, but it can also be shown full width. Unlike 1.85:1 there aren't boom mics, actors feet or sfx equipment that the masking hides, it is all extra picture area that can be seen without any detriment to the viewing experience.

UP offers very few advantages over standard 65mm Super Panavision in terms of the image quality it can offer to 35mm reduction prints, so they must have used this ultra-wide format for a reason other than that, as to use these huge bulky camera's on location and in the kind of action set pieces these film's provide it would not have been easy.

So as seeing it in 2.76:1 doesn't hurt the picture in any way, unlike viewing a 1.85:1 film in academy, then I fail to see the point of cropping it.

M
I understand what you're saying too. It's just that I find the 2.35 trailer for Ben-Hur on the bonus disc far more pleasant to watch than the narrower 2.76 feature. I'd love to have a Ben-Hur set that would give me both options.

I'm very happy with my 2.35 Ultra-Panavision DVD's such as Khartoum, and that's how most people viewed them in the theatres. What's wrong with having the same experience via DVD? Even the single screen Cinerama version didn't utilize all of the picture information available on the Ultra-Pan camera negative.
Export to Wiki
#16
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 2:40pm
  • Joined: July 2006
  • Location: Toronto
  • Post Count: 261

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt
I'm very happy with my 2.35 Ultra-Panavision DVD's such as Khartoum, and that's how most people viewed them in the theatres. What's wrong with having the same experience via DVD? Even the single screen Cinerama version didn't utilize all of the picture information available on the Ultra-Pan camera negative.

That essentially like saying "most people saw this on TV or on VHS and that was fine for them so why not release it in 4x3?"

I understand where you are coming from though--even with a 16x9 screen the image is quite narrow. But more purists would prefer it in the OAR, and people who want it to fill more television screen space probably would not want it letterboxed at 2.35 anyway because its still narrow and letterboxed. Its a compromise that I think too few would appreciate. A 2:1 compromise like Storaro does might be okay in terms of preserving the basic integrity of the shot while still yielding high screen detail, but again you still loose a large amount of info and some shots would still be ruined. Its kind of a lose-lose thing.
Export to Wiki
#17
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 3:10pm
  • Joined: February 1999
  • Post Count: 2,809

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

The projected aspect ratio of a film is something that was generally available via projection information or continuities.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."  T.E. Lawrence

Export to Wiki
#18
Rating: 0
2/9/08 at 4:27pm
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Location: DFW
  • Post Count: 114

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Jon, do you realize that UP /MGM C65 can be recreated in the home theater? I have a 2.65:1 screen and by using a 1.5X anamorphic lens (available from Isco) rather than a 1.33X anamorphic lens, the standard 16x9 projector can recreate a 2.66:1 image. The reason my screen is 2.65:1 rather than 2.75:1 has to do with need an extra few inches to handle the stacking area for my curtains.

It's true that UP / C-65 was cropped in the theater for presentation, but usually only down to 2.55-2.65:1. The original 35mm reduction prints of Ben Hur were even printed with wider frame lines (letterboxed) to preserve most of the original width on the OCN.

Vern
Export to Wiki
#19
Rating: 0
2/10/08 at 11:54am
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Post Count: 622

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
Roland, isn't HTWWW 3 strip Cinerama with some plates shot in Camera 65? Other than that, I take no issue with your list.

EDIT: Never mind, I went back and reread your post, but those selected scenes were originally presented in 3 strip, correct?

Yes, they were cropped to 2.6:1.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com

Export to Wiki
#20
Rating: 0
2/10/08 at 12:19pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

You're right about the wider frame lines on the original 35mm dye tranasfer prints of Ben-Hur. I showed that at the rep house that I ran in from the mid 70's to early80's. Later reissue prints on Eastmancolor stock were just standard 2.35.
Export to Wiki
#21
Rating: 0
2/10/08 at 12:25pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
Jon, do you realize that UP /MGM C65 can be recreated in the home theater? I have a 2.65:1 screen and by using a 1.5X anamorphic lens (available from Isco) rather than a 1.33X anamorphic lens, the standard 16x9 projector can recreate a 2.66:1 image. The reason my screen is 2.65:1 rather than 2.75:1 has to do with need an extra few inches to handle the stacking area for my curtains.

It's true that UP / C-65 was cropped in the theater for presentation, but usually only down to 2.55-2.65:1. The original 35mm reduction prints of Ben Hur were even printed with wider frame lines (letterboxed) to preserve most of the original width on the OCN.

Vern
If I had a projector and a large screen I would do the same thing - but, unfortunately I don't. That's why I think these films should be available in the full frame for the purists and cropped slightly to provide a larger image for the vast majority of viewers with smaller screens.
Export to Wiki
#22
Rating: 0
2/10/08 at 6:25pm
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

This should be interesting for this discussion.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/ben-hurdvd3.htm


http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/ben-hurdvd2.htm

Personally I much prefer to see the full 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Yes camera finders were used to protect for different formats, but I consider that to be something of a compromise. I'd rather see the full image area of the format the film was shot in rather than the format it was converted too.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#23
Rating: 0
2/10/08 at 8:21pm
  • Joined: February 1999
  • Post Count: 2,809

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

The concept of UP70 aka Camera 65 was Cinerama out of a single hole.

It seemed to work best when projected with specially rectified prints on deeply curved screens.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."  T.E. Lawrence

Export to Wiki
#24
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 12:00am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Post Count: 1,645

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
The concept of UP70 aka Camera 65 was Cinerama out of a single hole.

It seemed to work best when projected with specially rectified prints on deeply curved screens.

RAH
Do you know if 2001 was released on rectified prints for Cinerama?

This is from the original Variety review of 2001

Quote:
The Cinerama projection takes a bit of adjusting to, the curved look of tables and other squarish objects being a bit unreal

Is that a reference to wide-angle lens distortion? Or is it because the Cinerama prints weren't rectified for the curved screen?
Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition
Export to Wiki
#25
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 5:37am
  • Joined: February 1999
  • Post Count: 2,809

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

To be clear, I'm aware of no optical modifications to actual Cinerama (3 panel / 35mm 6 perf) footage.

I have also never personally seen a 70mm spherical print that had been rectified. They may exist.

The only rectified prints that I have seen are anamorphic productions, ie. with a 1.25 squeeze. It is these that were produced for highly curved screens.

Possibly someone more acquainted with 2001 can answer the distortion question, as it could have come from either situation.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."  T.E. Lawrence

Export to Wiki
#26
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 5:52am
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Post Count: 59

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

In 2001 I saw a superb new print of 2001 on the louvred Cinerama screen in Bradford, UK. Assuming that print is still in good shape, it's being repeated in Bradford at their widescreen festival 7-10 March. Also on show is a new 70mm print of Star! Sadly not showing this year, though, is How The West Was Won, presumably because their print is falling to pieces.
Export to Wiki
#27
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 1:03pm
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Post Count: 285

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

[quote=Robert Harris]
I have also never personally seen a 70mm spherical print that had been rectified. They may exist.



I have a letter somewhere from Technicolour UK saying that they prepared 6 such prints for " Circus World "( or "The Magnificent Showman " as it was called in the U.K )so I am sure they did exist and were used.

I also saw "Khartoum" at London's NFT in the 70's and it was spherical despite have Cinerama logos all over it so I believe by the time of that film's original release, the idea of any rectified prints either from anamorphic or spherical sources had been abandoned.I always thought that the distortion in "2001 " was as a result of the wide angle lenses used. Weren't some of the old Todd AO lenses brought out of retirement for that film?
Export to Wiki
#28
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 2:17pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

[quote=john a hunter]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I have also never personally seen a 70mm spherical print that had been rectified. They may exist.



I have a letter somewhere from Technicolour UK saying that they prepared 6 such prints for " Circus World "( or "The Magnificent Showman " as it was called in the U.K )so I am sure they did exist and were used.

I also saw "Khartoum" at London's NFT in the 70's and it was spherical despite have Cinerama logos all over it so I believe by the time of that film's original release, the idea of any rectified prints either from anamorphic or spherical sources had been abandoned.I always thought that the distortion in "2001 " was as a result of the wide angle lenses used. Weren't some of the old Todd AO lenses brought out of retirement for that film?

I saw Circus World, a 35mm anamorphic Technirama film, presented in 70mm Cinerama in Toronto. I remember that I didn't notice the distortions that plagued the non-rectified prints later on. Could that have been a rectified spherical 70mm print? 2001 & Ice Station Zebra, which were both shot in spherical Super Panavision, were wildly distorted on the curved Cinerama screen. Horizontal lined curved (local theatre equipment people referred to it as the smile effect) and as people and objects neared the edges of the screen they got stretched way out of shape.
Export to Wiki
#29
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 2:26pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
  • Post Count: 71

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianTurner
In 2001 I saw a superb new print of 2001 on the louvred Cinerama screen in Bradford, UK. Assuming that print is still in good shape, it's being repeated in Bradford at their widescreen festival 7-10 March. Also on show is a new 70mm print of Star! Sadly not showing this year, though, is How The West Was Won, presumably because their print is falling to pieces.

Was the 2001 print you saw in Bradford projected through a D-150 lens? That should have helped to reduce the distortions somewhat.
Export to Wiki
#30
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 3:04pm
  • Joined: February 1999
  • Post Count: 2,809

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Everything is distorted on a highly curved screen.

Rectified prints allowed for projection without anamorphic lenses on UP70 projects.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."  T.E. Lawrence

Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread