Entertainment desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 2

tattoo artist hourly rates?

what is the normal hourly rate for an average tattoo artist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.250.236 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think tattoo artists are paid an hourly rate. This Dutch site says the price depends on whether the tattoo is colored or not and where it is placed; the size is probably important too. So I conclude that prices are based on the tattoo rather than the time it takes to apply it. - 131.211.211.181 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The cost also depends on where you are living. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, from personal experience. Most tattoo artists I have visited have charged an hourly rate (which in the end is the same as charging more for a more complex/more colorful tattoo) , although the rate itself varies so widely from artist to artist and from city to city that it doesn't make much sense to give an average. -- Ferkelparade π 09:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to provide some, possibly irrelevant, advice, treat tattoo artists and plastic surgeons similarly: do not find the cheapest specialist since the procedure is an investment you will have to live with. I can ask my roommate about his impression of the hourly rates of average artists in the Raleigh-Durham area, but the prices vary wildly by location.--droptone (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on eHow says $100/hour in Texas(link is blacklisted). I've seen tattoo parlors in other places put hourly prices on their websites. Looking at a couple of places in London, England shows anything from 35-80 pounds[1] which would be close to the American price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$100-150/hr is, in my experience, a typical charge for a reputable tattoo artist (Boston area). If the artist has spent a substantial amount of time coming up with custom designs for you, that may be reflected in the price. In-demand artists may also charge more, so prices may vary even within the same tattoo studio depending on what artist you get (experienced tattooers often work faster, but not always). There tends to be a $50 minimum and a non-refundable deposit, and it's good form to leave a tip. As others have mentioned, there are bargain tattoo establishments to be found, but you get what you pay for (and that may or may not include hepatitis). --Fullobeans (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When it comes to tattoos, cheapest rarely equals a satisfactory outcome. It's never a good idea to accept free tattoos from friends or friends of friends (unless your friends are skilled tattoo artists, that is) either - no-one wants to end up with the dreaded 'crappy tattoo in highly visible area' now, do they? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion, got me thinking - do tattoo artists 'sign' their work? ny156uk (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In blood! Not their own, though. Actually, apparently one Swedish tattoo artist did sign his work—against the wishes of his client, who pressed charges. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, my roommate said between $100 and $150 an hour for the Raleigh-Durham area. Designs with a lot of long lines tend toward the later figure whereas smaller/shorter designs tend toward the former.--droptone (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the guy who's done all my tattoos so far has charged me per job, quoting me an overall price beforehand - not per hour (though he'll obviously have factored in roughly how long it's going to take into his prices). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "playdate"

Resolved

I added reception information to Knowing (film) recently, and I referenced Variety in covering box office information. Variety had this sentence, "Nicolas Cage's 'Knowing' gained knowledge of first place at the international box office, topping a moderate frame with $9.8 million at 1,711 playdates in 10 markets." I am not clear on what "playdates" means here. Variety is known for its slanguage, but its dictionary does not show a definition. Does anyone know if the word means "theaters" or "screens" (as there can be multiple screens in one theater) or even how many times it played to international audiences, regardless of theaters and screens? —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt you didn't ask me! :) "Playdate" in this context is synonymous with "theater", rather than "screen". Steve ^{T • C} 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think you would know! I thought it was some slang on Variety's part. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, here are the details of the book in which I found the information when I checked up on this a few months ago:

Marich, Robert (2005). Marketing to Moviegoers. Focal Press. p. 190. ISBN 0240806875.

Steve ^{T • C} 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert de Niro

Does Robert De Nero play the violin? --KageTora (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Question moved from Humanities desk) - Eron^Talk 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he does, it isn't mentioned in his IMdB biography. (Though rumour has it that Nero did...) - Eron^Talk 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too found nothing indicating that he plays the violin. Since Robert de Niro's devotion to method acting is well known (and he did learn the basics of playing the tenor saxophone for his performance in New York, New York, for example), I'm curious what prompted this question. Was Robert de Niro ever seen playing the violin in one of his many film appearances? Or will he be in an upcoming movie? Of course I can imagine him carrying a violin case, as could Bananarama, but I couldn't find a movie where his character is seen playing the violin. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet $ that KageTora has connected "Nero" (the emperor, who allegedly, but could not possibly have in actuality, played the violin while Rome burned) with "Niro". That might have legs if Robert de Niro had been born, say, Mervyn Smith, and adopted "Robert de Niro" as a professional name, choosing something that sounded like "Nero" because he was a violin player and wanted to sound like someone famous who was reputedly also a violin player. But that wasn't the case. Also, the header is about "de Niro", but the question is about "de Nero", so there's some confusion there. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HDTV Question

I wasn't positive to post this here or in the Computing Desk. Didn't seem like a clear cut either way. But anyhow, this is just a short question on HDTV set up. I'm planning on getting an HDTV (I've got a model that I'm fairly sure will work nicely picked out), and just had a quick question on the set up. I'm not planning on hooking it up to a high definition programming source for a bit, and in the meantime, I want to ensure it'll work with the SDTV programming. I'm aware of the aspect ratios and such, and that's not a big deal for me, but basically I just want to ensure this: will the cable that is currently running into my SDTV work for my new HDTV? Thanks much. Cheers, Dooms Day 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an HDTV will work fine with a SDTV signal, unless for some strange reason it's lacking a coax type connection on it (or what ever type of connection you currently have)Tobyc75 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you live or what type of signal may be on your existing cable, but if you live in the US and the cable carries RF from a rooftop or other outdoor antenna, your new HDTV will be able to receive free over-the-air Digital television. Many network programs are now in HD, as well as many syndicated shows. --Thomprod (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to be aware of is that, while just about any HDTV is capable of displaying analog TV, on some of them it looks truly horrid, much worse than on an analog TV. This can be the result of many factors:

1) TV size. Many newer TVs are larger than those they replaced, and displaying a low res image on a bigger screen makes it look grainy. Look at your analog TV with a magnifying glass to see what it will look like.

2) Aspect ratio. Almost all HDTVs will have the wide-screen aspect ratio, while analog TV is not normally broadcast to fit those TVs. Thus, you need large black bars on either side, or to truncate the top and bottom of the picture, or to stretch it horizontally, or some combo of those, to get the program to fit the new screen.

3) Upconversion (to make an image with a small number of pixels have the larger number of pixels available on an HDTV) is sometimes done well, sometimes done as cheaply as possible. For example, if you had an analog photo of a rainbow, and it had a blue pixel next to a green one, and you wanted twice as many pixels to display on the new TV, you would ideally end up with a blue pixel, then a blue pixel with a bit of green, then a green pixel with a bit of blue, then a green pixel. A cheap upconverter will just give you two blue pixels next to two green pixels.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers neither tell you how good of a job their TVs do at displaying analog TV nor do retailers normally make an analog signal available for such a test in their showrooms. Therefore, I would rely on customer reviews to tell which TVs are better at this and which are worse. Alternatively, you might consider keeping your old TV until you can get a digital signal. If you get both signals, you could use the HDTV for digital and old one for analog, until that time. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'd say that Q's like this about the technology behind HDTV belong on the Computer Desk, while questions on the content broadcast in HDTV mode belong here. However, since you made a good-faith effort to put a Q on the proper desk, that's all we can ask. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comment that "I'm not planning on hooking it up to a high definition programming source for a bit", I agree with the previous statement that an HDTV should be able to take a signal from rabbit ears or a roof antenna and extract the digital signal from it. However, digital TV often needs a much better antenna to get a respectable signal, so your old antenna may not work well to receive digital TV. Be careful when buying a new antenna, too, as many unscrupulous manufacturers are happy to slap an "HD Ready !" sticker on the same old antenna and double the price. You actually need a better antenna (which usually means bigger), but nothing is otherwise special about an HD antenna. I myself intend to get the Channel Master 4228 antenna (or 4228HD, as they've now made minor changes and slapped HD on the end of their model number), when the time comes.

If you have cable or satellite TV, it's likely already broadcast in HDTV, if you are in the US. VCRs and older DVD players will continue to provide an analog signal, though, while Blu-ray players can provide true HD. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]