"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Indeed, I hope the (overused) smily face let you know that I was lightly teasing those that would worry about such intent. Heck, Gilliam even mentions in the commentary about the wire that pulls the ship in that extraordinary shot where the stars melt into sand...

In this case it's certainly not egregious, but there's a smigdin of discomfort that a restoration would become a (unsupervised by the filmmaker) redux, as I'm sure you would agree.

lol, well in this particular case, indeed, "it's certainly not egregious".

Terry Gilliam was very much involved in the transfer of Munchausen, sitting for several days with Grover Crisp (a V.P. known to RAH and others) and the colorist. He never liked the old transfer, was never consulted about it (until Grover called him), so this latest release represents how Gilliam wanted the film to look.

As for the wires, that was something Terry wanted taken care of in a big way. But, it is not "restoration" in the true sense of the word. I just used that term in a lackadaisical fashion so that you and other readers would have a handle on where in the Blu-ray production the process occurred.

We actually call it wire removal. Many directors we have worked with are really interested in preserving the illusion on Blu-ray. Unlike film prints, where some of this kind of thing is either overlooked or not as readily apparent, Blu-ray is rather unforgiving in the amount of detail, wanted or unwanted, that is available in the image.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

In the end, please forgive the rehash of a long over debate, I enjoy your writings considerably, it was the link at the bottom of your sig that brought the comments to the fore. .

Ah, I understand now…… My Signature Post for the Year 2009 and its associated link.
Keep in mind that I never strike first blood as was done on *science* by both an owner/administrator and a screenshot *scientist* in tandem with their chastisement of the Blu-ray, The Dark Knight.

Some people should realize that just because they post on the internet, they are not completely insulated and may still be accountable for their inaccurate *analysis* as is self-explanatory by Chris Nolan’s response in the link provided in my signature about The Dark Knight.

Jeff is fully capable of handling some of your other questions and I welcome his participation, as I’m leaving early to beat the Friday rush (with the downpour we are currently experiencing outside) to head out to the dez for the weekend, where it is hopefully sunny, dry and warm.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As for the wires, that was something Terry wanted taken care of in a big way. But, it is not "restoration" in the true sense of the word. I just used that term in a lackadaisical fashion so that you and other readers would have a handle on where in the Blu-ray production the process occurred.

We actually call it wire removal. Many directors we have worked with are really interested in preserving the illusion on Blu-ray. Unlike film prints, where some of this kind of thing is either overlooked or not as readily apparent, Blu-ray is rather unforgiving in the amount of detail, wanted or unwanted, that is available in the image.

Wire, as well as other physical artifact removal, has become a more important part of the process as we return to OCNs for transfer and scanning.

Since shortly after the beginnings of film production, and certainly by the 1920s, filmmakers were keenly aware of that affect that duping and print stocks had upon their exposed negatives. It was KNOWN that wires would NOT be visible through a lavender (fine grain) or matrix generation, and there was no concern to hide them.

This became a problem, pre-digital, during the transfer of some of the early Chaplin features, as quality fine grain masters were accessed, and production "techniques" never before seen, became a problem.

Once the industry hit the digital era, wire removal became a normal part of the process.

When The Godfather Part II was shot in 1974, wires were of no concern as they would be hidden by matrix grain, as well as the optical and physical softness of the dye transfer printing process. For the restoration, we had two instances for which removal was necessary, as we were working from OCN for the offending shots, and scanning at 4k.

This a a rather long-winded way of expressing the fact, as Penton has noted, that while wires or other apparatus may be in the shot, the filmmaker, in this case, Mr. Gilliam, was keenly aware that they would most likely be well hidden by the time that the film was taken from OCN to contemporary IP / IN (the second gen 5243 stock) and then on to print. Not so with digital scanning.

RAH

[GabrielB]

For those interested in such things - and we all know this thread loves technical topics - there are some videos on this site chronicling some of the VFX of Benjamin Button.

http://www.benjaminbuttonfx.com

What I don't understand though is why they decided to opt to do a digital version of Benjamin when he was physically fit to be captured on set with Brad Pitt in makeup... What is for some sort of consistency?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This a a rather long-winded way of expressing the fact, as Penton has noted, that while wires or other apparatus may be in the shot, the filmmaker, in this case, Mr. Gilliam, was keenly aware that they would most likely be well hidden by the time that the film was taken from OCN to contemporary IP / IN (the second gen 5243 stock) and then on to print. Not so with digital scanning.

RAH

...fair enough, and lord knows I'm not in disagreement, I'm simply making the point that such changes should be done with the utmost reticence... Wire removal with Gilliam's tacit aproval is one thing, but (to take another "aparatus" example) what if Lowry decided to erase the pole that flips the truck in Raiders? Or, similarly (and at the same restoration house), they unilaterally got rid of that little stick that knocks over the AT-AT in empire, or the corrected the miscoloured saber of Vader at the end of SW? (forgive the nerdy examples, sir...this IS the internet...)

Sure, it's a 'mistake' that you can see these things, but its clear that Spielberg and Lucas have chosen to make some changes (colour grading, complete new effects in some instances like the Walkies in ET or the many changes in SW), but leave others well alone. Being sensitive to what film production elements (ie., grain) would normally hide is of course a key guide, in consultation with living members of the production crew such as DOP or Director, but who gets to make the call when those people are no longer with us? I assume, frankly, that it's someone like RAH. I also not only assume but know for a fact that not all restoration experts have as much sensitivity or knowledge about not only the history of production in general but often the elements of the speicific film that make it unique and well worth preserving. And I'm not sure for those people that the default should be to remove elements masked by the grain when doing a digital restoration, but to keep things well enough alone, preserving rather than correcting as the ultimate goal.

I -believe- there are wire elements that haven't been removed from 2001 (I may be wrong, but the pen-to-sticky tape shot I think you can see a couple frames of monofilament, and the airlock scene might have some wire work). "Correcting" a Kubrick film, for example, should be done as an absolute last resort methinks. To be honest, the film that I most think of when it comes to rediculous amounts of wiring in shot that I never noticed when I was a kid is Disney's Black Hole. It's almost a marionette film!

Let me simply point out the fact that fixing "mistakes" on film is a slippery slope, one that should be done with the utmost respect for not only the original intention of the filmmakers (say, "it wasn't supposed to be seen that way, and they would have cleaned it up if they could"), balanced with the original, historical presentation ("that's the way it was in theatres"). You're point about grain hiding wire work, that both theatrically and the intention of filmmakers was to try to use the choice of stock itself to mask the rigging, with digital scanning uncovering details never meant to be exposed in the first place, is a compelling one. Identical, it seems to be, to the raging debates over open matte vs. theatrically cropped presentations. Still, as we get further and further away from the expertice with chemical film stock as the move to digital plows forward, I worry that a similar senstivity will begin to lapse, and the "fix it" mentality will trump reason and aesthetic sense in order to present things in the "best" (but not most acurate or historicaly senstive) light. When this goes awry, we're left with restorers or disc mastering engineers tweaking a little here, a little there, and ending up with our favourite whipping boy, dear Mr. Patton.

[Robert Harris]

Regarding Mr. Kubrick's 2001, I don't believe that the pen on glass and other anomalies were visible in 1968 on Eastman 5385 (in production from 1962 through 1972), which means that I would be in support of the clean-up for not only Blu-ray, but for printing on modern stocks with their far greater powers of resolution.

These decisions need to be examined on a case by case basis, dependent upon how the films made their way through post-production, and on which stocks or via which process they were printed.

RAH

[4K2K]

Even though the grain in multiple generation copies would probably hide grain in some films, I don't think it does in all films.

Couldn't Blu-ray give the viewer the choice, with an option on a menu of whether to watch the film exactly as it was when it was originally in cinemas or whether to watch the version scanned from the original negative that has then been altered with digital wire-removal and other techniques.

From a restoration, and historical perspective, shouldn't the option to see it in it's original state be there? Like they didn't have digital effects for many years. If someone wanted to watch how a particular film would have looked if watched in the cinema many years ago, should the only version they can watch on Blu-ray have digital effects (like wire removal) techniques in shots where they wouldn't have been possible at the time? Like what if they wanted to see how films and effects have changed over the years - like in some film studies course - if all films they watched, even films from the very earliest years of cinema, had the same digital effects techniques added for the Blu-ray they wouldn't see effects techniques changing as accurately and they wouldn't see an accurate representation of what those films were really like originally.

The disadvantage to doing to having both options would be it would probably need two separate encodes so might use up more disc space - but that wouldn't be a problem for shorter films and you could always use a separate disc too - to encode the true, theatrical version.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Regarding Mr. Kubrick's 2001, I don't believe that the pen on glass and other anomalies were visible in 1968 on Eastman 5385 (in production from 1962 through 1972), which means that I would be in support of the clean-up for not only Blu-ray, but for printing on modern stocks with their far greater powers of resolution.

Was the Blu-ray of 2001 film-scanned from the original 65mm camera negative? Do you know what resolution it was scanned at?

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Was the Blu-ray of 2001 film-scanned from the original 65mm camera negative? Do you know what resolution it was scanned at?

Not certain, but from history I would guess a 35 element.

[Jeff Kleist]

Couldn't Blu-ray give the viewer the choice, with an option on a menu of whether to watch the film exactly as it was when it was originally in cinemas or whether to watch the version scanned from the original negative that has then been altered with digital wire-removal and other techniques.

What Mr. Harris is trying to say is that this WAS how it was seen originally in cinemas. Things like wires were shot and "protected" counting on the resolving capability and characteristics of the stocks at the time. The prints that DVDs and even many LD/VHS tapes were run off of are superior in quality to the print that would have run 2001 in theaters, and the same goes even for Baron Munchausen. Aa good example: I saw Labyrinth on it's re-release last year, and the Fire Dancer scene, which looks horrible and luminence keyed to death on the DVD looks almost perfectly fine on 35mm, because the effect was designed specificallly for that medium. Likewise, the wires would be hidden in that medium.

A seperate encode wouldn't be required, it can be done with seamless branching, but it's a lot of little things that would be expensive to implement.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Not certain, but from history I would guess a 35 element.

I remember a hubub about the remastered MGM/UA LaserDisc back in the 90's using a 65MM element.

The DVD is presented at a 2.20 AR as well, did they "downgrade" the source? George Feltenstien who produced the LD at MGM is now at Warner, who produced the DVD...

Any way of finding out Mr. Harris?

[Penton-Man]

I’m back from a Valentine’s Day of romantic frolicking with my wife at a popular resort in the desert, in order to attend a little known Awards show and dinner this evening at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel.

So, I’ve got a few moments for some musings.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

...Being sensitive to what film production elements (ie., grain) would normally hide is of course a key guide, in consultation with living members of the production crew such as DOP or Director, but who gets to make the call when those people are no longer with us? I assume, frankly, that it's someone like RAH. I also not only assume but know for a fact that not all restoration experts have as much sensitivity or knowledge about not only the history of production in general but often the elements of the speicific film that make it unique and well worth preserving. And I'm not sure for those people that the default should be to remove elements masked by the grain when doing a digital restoration, but to keep things well enough alone, preserving rather than correcting as the ultimate goal.

Still, as we get further and further away from the expertice with chemical film stock as the move to digital plows forward, I worry that a similar senstivity will begin to lapse, and the "fix it" mentality will trump reason and aesthetic sense in order to present things in the "best" (but not most acurate or historicaly senstive) light.....

I like when people “worry” about these particular things as it makes me feel that there is actually some hope for the stock price of a pharmaceutical company (of which I own some shares) to actually increase , a company which produces one of the most popular anti-depressant medications on the market.
So, for those that are prone to such, please “worry” and seek professional help, in this case an M.D., as psychologists (Ph.D.) can not write prescriptions and that path of consultation will be of absolutely zero benefit to my portfolio.

I also like when people are “distracted” as it may boost sales of another mental disorder medication produced by another pharmaceutical company of which I hold shares.

All kidding aside, and not to single you out personally , but, I think that the words being “worried” and being “distracted” concerning issues regarding high definition packaged home media have gotten to be two of the most hackneyed and overly dramatic terms used these days on any audio video internet forum. I never knew that there were so many ‘worry’-warts and easily ‘distracted’ souls within this particular hobby.

As long as film restoration/preservation people like RAH (Lawrence of Arabia), Mike Pogorzelski, Joe Lindner, Chris Horak, Ned Price (The Searchers), Schawn Belston (South Pacific, The Robe), and Grover (Lawrence of Arabia), etc. are in charge, I wouldn’t 'worry' too much about the heritage of the films for which these folks have oversight, esp. if you could care less about my stock portfolio. If one is prone to “worrying” then “worry” about what budgets these people are given to work with…….not their judgments, which are given careful consideration.
Otherwise……. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7nxXFejBo

If one is cognizant of their credentials and experience, then one can easily appreciate how dedicated these folks are to film and how long they have shown this dedication.
For example, SPE set up the first systematic collaboration between studio archivists and museum-based archivists back in the 90’s, namely The Film and Tape Preservation Committee.
On a more individual note, one of the aforementioned studio professionals is a founding director of the board of the National Television and Video Preservation Foundation, which provided grants for the purpose of restoring and preserving documentaries and other independently-owned content as a legacy for future generations.

So, to think that these folks do not recognize the importance of mainstream Hollywood feature films regarding when and how to ‘modify’ available film elements as to maintain integrity………would be quite naïve.

The reel (pun) dilemmas come into play with things like when a preservation/restoration dept. gathers together four or five original Technicolor prints of a certain feature film and all of them look different (RAH or Torsten can explain).
What’s a man/woman to do?
Which print do you select as being correct?

Or, on a non-technical note……..different versions of a film are often made for domestic and overseas markets. Then, what is the “original” version?
If you have a limited amount of money to work with, which version do you fund?

The good thing is that market-driven formats like Blu-ray are the biggest boon to film restoration at the moment. So, another way to stop worrying, is to keep buying dem Blu-rays and you will be happy to know that you are indirectly supporting Film Restoration.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

...Let me simply point out the fact that fixing "mistakes" on film is a slippery slope, one that should be done with the utmost respect for not only the original intention of the filmmakers (say, "it wasn't supposed to be seen that way, and they would have cleaned it up if they could"), balanced with the original, historical presentation ("that's the way it was in theatres").

Which is exactly one reason why I am providing folks a blow by blow accounting of the Saga of the Color Filters for South Pacific prior to its streeting on Blu-ray.

Stay tuned for the upcoming excerpts which I will post concerning the situation, as some readers may end up concluding that this particular feature film represents an archivist’s ethical dilemma, whereas others may surmise that the way to do it(the restoration) “right” was rather straightforward, albeit involving, as the available reference prints had faded.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I remember a hubub about the remastered MGM/UA LaserDisc back in the 90's using a 65MM element.

The DVD is presented at a 2.20 AR as well, did they "downgrade" the source? George Feltenstien who produced the LD at MGM is now at Warner, who produced the DVD...

Any use of a 65mm element for transfer in the '90s would have given a less than stellar image. To get around this, and take advantage of the most current technologies in 35mm transfer equipment, we created a 35mm interpositive from the 65mm restoration negative of My Fair Lady in 1994.

The element was created specifically for video transfer, as it matted the sides and exposed the entire 65mm negative area to the splice lines, creating a piece of available visual real estate wider than would have been viewed in 70mm projection, ie. closer to 2.35 than to 2.21:1.

MFL was the first time that such an IP was created, and became the standard in the following years. As it has only been over the past few years that high quality 65mm scanning has been available, my perception is that the most recent incarnation of 2001 would most likely have used that technology, with earlier transfers, for example, the laserdisc, using a standard 35mm scope element.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This a a rather long-winded way of expressing the fact, as Penton has noted, that while wires or other apparatus may be in the shot, the filmmaker, in this case, Mr. Gilliam, was keenly aware that they would most likely be well hidden by the time that the film was taken from OCN to contemporary IP / IN (the second gen 5243 stock) and then on to print. Not so with digital scanning.

RAH

Thanks for the input.
To give folks an idea as to how involving wire and rigging removal can be for modern day feature films in post production, it can involve literally 30 – 50 hrs. in post by the artist(s) and potentially thousands of dollars in cost, to remove a single wire in a moving shot and make it look good.

Because, even if you erase the wire (and sometimes its pesky shadow), a lot of time and effort is put into hiding or erasing the artifacts of the process you used to erase the wire in the first place and provide seamless texture and tonality to the image. A wide range of techniques are utilized which cover the spectrum from simple painting frame by frame to stabilization of a moving shot to morphing and complex 3D solutions. Stuff far too complicated and frankly boring, to go into much detail on this thread.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Well, actually more to the East and just a little to the South, but merely an hour and a half away by train......Re: day jobs - the capital

Well then, I would hope that you had the opportunity to attend at least some of this……………
http://www.berlinale.de/

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I like when people “worry” about these particular things as it makes me feel that there is actually some hope for the stock price of a pharmaceutical company (of which I own some shares) to actually increase , a company which produces one of the most popular anti-depressant medications on the market.
So, for those that are prone to such, please “worry” and seek professional help, in this case an M.D., as psychologists (Ph.D.) can not write prescriptions and that path of consultation will be of absolutely zero benefit to my portfolio.

I also like when people are “distracted” as it may boost sales of another mental disorder medication produced by another pharmaceutical company of which I hold shares.

All kidding aside, and not to single you out personally

I know and see you're kidding, but I can't help but feel a bit of malice from this joke... Maybe it's those damn rolly eyes, I take those as a derisive dismisal of my point and a lack of respect, all in emoticon form. Ah well, guess I'm being too sensitive. I read is as "shuttup, we know what we're doing, we're experts!"

Yes, yes you are. So, supposedly, were the people behind DNR'ing Patton. Or the misframing of Pirates for Disney. Or the QC on the first release of Fifth Element. Or a heap of other things that slip through the process. Some are mistakes. Some are cutting corners just to get the damn product out the door with the cynical promise of a new shiny cover with the same old, tired transfer inside.

You've admitted that wire removal can be done poorly - is it better, then, for a BD master to have poor wire removal, removing elements that would be masked previously by release print grain, or to leave the elements well enough alone? Should archive masters of fragile negative scans be the corrected or uncorrected versions? There are lots of instances where careful CGI replacement of effects was done at a resolution that, years later, is not sufficient for current projection or even home standards (Star Trek 1 comes to mind). Are these fixes done at 2k? 4k? Should they correct matte lines due to optical printing errors? Seams in backdrops? Replace and recompose process shots for views outside vehicle windows? You REALLY can't see that this is at the least something that should be discussed? I'm certain that with some liquid truth serum/scotch RAH can tell us some absolute horror stories about ignorance and destruction at the hand of some that were, at the time, working under the aegis of doing good for the film (the equivalent has to be restorations of fine art that, years later, prove to be in fact destructive to the original artwork that these changes were meant to preserve or repair).

At any rate, we're not talking about Lawrence, or Kong, or My Fair Lady, we're talking about a film that Columbia didn't bother to strike more than forty six prints for on first release. If IMDB and the comentary is to believe, it (theatrically) lost almost $40 million dollars for its studio (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/business) Because of Gilliam, and eventual success on home video, I assume some extra money and care was spent on this transfer/restoration. Can the same be said for every film of that era or earlier?

You can't seriously be arguing some restorations and/or transfers will not be done as carefully as those done by those restorer/artists you list above. As more and more films are viewed in ever increasing resolution at home, the thought of mishandling even something as innocuous as wire or rig removal is a real one, not some drugged paranoia that needs to be rediculed. Non A-list titles could very well be done on the (relative) cheap. It's certainly not impossible, and I fear like, that we'll see B and C grade "corrections" of these elements crop up. And who gets to decide? The studio? The director? The post house hired to do the transfer?

Forget the pathology directed at me - this is show business we're talking about. Sometimes, sadly, shockingly (*cough*), art doesn't come first. And I can't help but think there are at least a few executive idiots in tinsel town that would completely screw up a film for the sake of over correcting "mistakes" in order to modernize the look of a film.

Still, it's your thread. Rant away if you'd like...

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I'm certain that with some liquid truth serum/scotch RAH can tell us some absolute horror stories about ignorance and destruction at the hand of some that were, at the time, working under the aegis of doing good for the film (the equivalent has to be restorations of fine art that, years later, prove to be in fact destructive to the original artwork that these changes were meant to preserve or repair).

Sorry, but there a quite a number of situations that will go unrecorded by me publicly. At least until I do my tome on precisely how poorly film can and has been handled, shortly available for pre-order on Amazon, and available in vinegar impregnated leather binding...

I don't believe that Penton is suggesting that all film handling, be it restorative or simply aimed at preservation, is all to the good, properly thought out perfectly handled.

Digital work, especially, has left pixel upon pixel of partially corrected and / or poorly conceived work in its wake. Occasionally based upon software not quite ready for prime time; by well-meaning workers who haven't been led by their superiors to research the film on which they're working, and remove visual information that ISN'T meant to be removed; by workers who are told to do a certain task, but fast and cheap; as a result of studio personnel who choose to work at certain facilities where for untold reasons more damage than help is actually achieved...

People working within our industry with unique film elements, and in the restorative / preservation process are people. They err on occasion, sometimes don't care about the quality of their work, and some should best be working in a plastic comb factory somewhere away from all film elements.

But given the watchful eye of people who care, and gain knowledge about what they're doing with each passing day -- and retain it -- and are ever mindful of not only what a BD looks like, but what is occurring to the film elements that viewers never know about, we're in quite good shape.

When they interrelate with post houses that also hire the best, care about their product, fully understand film and its history -- and just listen, we've won half the battle.

Have I any concerns or doubts about the prime subject of your discussion? Not one. For the simple reason that Columbia's Grover Crisp would be supporting the project, and any changes or modifications necessary to make the film elements viable in concert with Blu-ray. Any tech that suggests improper changes or wrong-headed ideas to him will do so at their peril. He takes no prisoners.

You mention Patton. Patton was a situation for which I don't have all the details. What I do know is that somewhere / somehow, the wrong path was suggested by the client to the post facility doing the work. This could have gone two ways. In some post houses, the question would have been raised: "do you really want to remove grain from something that doesn't need its grain affected?"

In this case, the people involved seem to have been attuned to the video image and not film. Grain was seemingly the enemy. And it was summarily executed, along with ALL of the true detail as captured on the 65mm frame.

These were neither bad nor stupid people. It appears that what they genuinely wanted was to present the cleanest possible image on Blu-ray, removed the grain, and never did understand (or see) that what they were doing was one step above a simple defocus -- the oldest grain removal technology since the stone age. They meant well. They attempted to create a gorgeous product. Which is a far cry from people not caring, or doing something absolutely stupid.

Working in film restoration is a veritable minefield. Even when one attempts to keep everything as perfect as possible, a single tech down the line, can inadvertently create havoc just when you believe that all is going well. Leave a room for a moment and changes can be made by well-meaning people, for a myriad of reasons.

Also keep in mind that the studio asset protection executives are generally working on a dozen or more projects at a time. While they have their staffs involved, they are also constantly on the move around town, making the trek from Burbank or Culver City to Santa Monica or Hollywood to view a few minutes footage here or there.

Recall the old adage, "If something can go wrong, it will..." With so many people involved at all stages of a restoration, working in both image as well as audio, the best that one can do is to select and know every person involved in the process, make certain that they communicate, and then personally be there every step of the way. That and cloning.

At the end of the day, and at the most basic level, the intent of all at what we consider a professional archival level is to "do no harm." Whatever changes performed to make a film more viewable, workable, or just plain better looking via modern technology must never be performed upon original elements, which at all times must be preserved, duplicated a full film resolution, and protected for future generations.

RAH

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I know and see you're kidding, but I can't help but feel a bit of malice from this joke... Maybe it's those damn rolly eyes....

Hah, those damn "rolly eyes" were in reference to the performance of my stock portfolio and anyone here that is/was so invested knows exactly what I mean, some may even have tears in their rolly eyes, if they were approaching a planned retirement age.

At least I have time to ‘recover’ my loses……….or so says Essox, our on staff accountant and financial advisor.