Ira Ratner

Well, you knew the answer anyway. But if you did storyboard work where you now live and now want to hire the same, why did you ask this question? Don't you know the acceptable rates? I had no idea about Texas and just wanted to contribute that you're better off going hourly. Some of the posts here are getting real cryptic these days.

And Steve--THANK YOU for mentioning 12 Angry Men. It's always nice to be reminded what a stunning film it is, and it sure must be EASY for anyone to do the same kind of work, right? I mean, aside from the opening scene, it's just 12 shumucks (and the bailiff now and then) in a room.(HAH! I'm being sarcastic here.) This IS such a great example of visual storytelling. It doesn't have to be sunsets and rolling hills and flashbacks about a horrible childhood. It just has to be long, medium and close-ups of 12 angry men, in one stupid room, each doing his own thing and bringing his own emotional and other history to it. And forget about political correctedness--it's OKAY that there wasn't a single broad in the whole film.

Morgan, how old are you, where are you from, and do you have any particular interest in a certain genre? Although there were a bunch of real classics mentioned here, you might still think they stink depending on where you're "coming from," and that's totally okay. They say Shakespeare is a pretty good author (HAH!), but if anyone tells me that they actually enjoys reading that stuff, I think they're totally out of their mind. Like, I myself can't sit through 99% of silent film stuff--but that other 1%--OH MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Total genius.

Touche! And I don't work for the Post Office or know anyone who does. They get a terribly undeserved bad reputation.

Loaded question: Depends on the level of detail you need--just rough frames stroked in black? Or color with a modicum of detail and shading? In this economy, you want a guy to sit down and work with you and just charge by the hour. The more you change your mind and he has to redo frames, the more money he makes. (It will also be a good reminder for you to think it all through before you work with the guy.) In addition, a per frame charge is kind of awkward because you might really bust his balls on a few frames where HE would be pissed, where conversely it will take him no time at all to do other frames, where YOU would be pissed, with the same cost for each. As far as $ per hour, again--depends on the quality, and the area you're in. But I would think that nowadays, you would pay anywhere $35 to $75 an hour. Mind you, these guys could be worth much more, but in this economy, people are happy to be working and eating. Budgeting $500 to $1,000 for a half-way decent storyboard guy/gal is money very well spent for a real project, because you gotta remember: Although you may be a filmmaker, these guys are literal ARTISTS, with a superior take on perspective and such. So, you may explain something to him, and the frame he gives you really captures the essence of what you wanted to achieve, and giving you a real tool when it's time to shoot. Mind you, my experience comes from advertising work in the 80s, where we had salaried storyboarders on staff. The art directors would work with them in real time, and 9 times out of 10, the art director was wrong.

I don't see how you can objectively judge any of this via a computer monitor anyway. Plus, it ain't moving. Plus again, your subject here is posed as a still shot with a still backdrop. I would like to see you do this in a more complex scene setting (like a beach, park, etc.), where all of the foreground and background elements come into play.

Yeah, it's a real crap shoot with the rewind tank--which is what makes it so interesting! I'm not doing any serious work anyway, just screwing around, but I have no problem shooting some spools and playing around processing them. Hell, this tank would be perfect if I ever wanted to do a remake of Zelig.

Didn't FedEx buy them?

Wow--be careful! Under the securing C-clamps, I would use some blocks of wood with additional, redundant clamps for the off-chance of failure of the main clamps. Know what I mean? Like, if a main clamp failed, it would fall down to the supporting system and not kill anyone. Also, rope is your friend for extra safety.

I'm learning these are a bitch to get consistent results with, so I'll just play with it every now and then. Or pretend I'm invading Poland.

Richard--help: I just bought a tank (waiting for it to arrive from the Ukraine) and my head is spinning with all of this. Here's the tank: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=250361470144 And here is an OLD guide for Kodak b&w reversal processing, with old chemicals, so I can assume that my tank refers to Table II on the right, correct? (Based on the old chemistry.) http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/Kodak3.GIF So what the hell do I do now for new 7265? Can I use this chart, but with WHICH chemistry? And if you recommend different chemistry, how does the chart change as far as the temps or times? I got good vibes from Jayne, so why use D19 as opposed to other(s)? I am GUESSING that I should be making one complete pass of film every 60 seconds, hence the long development times involved. And I'm also assuming that when I load this thing, the ends of the film are clipped onto the reels so they don't fall off, And yeah--I know temp control is a bitch, but been there...done that. I want a developer/process that will give me the richest blacks and that typical Plus-X look.

Hey, that Steele chart is great. I just wish I could VISUALIZE what the different formulas ultimately look like.

Oh--I almost forgot to tell you what the fight with my wife was about: The K3 was on the tripod with the Meteor zoom, she was cleaning and backed into it real hard, and I yelled real loud for her to grab it before for the lens crashed straight down onto the ceramic tile. And she got mad at me for yelling at her, and refuses to accept that I had a good reason. I was across the room, so what was I supposed to do--say "please" and "honey" and whisper, while the camera almost became toast? It KILLS them when you're right on one, and they refuse to admit fault.

I read the Kodak documentation and got more confused than before. (Too much info.) I also thought that some folks DO use D-19 for reversal, like Jayne who visited here. But I'll check out the FOMO. I lucked out on the price of the tank--just $35 plus $35 shipping from our Ukranian, Russian-hating brethren. Scroll down for multiple images: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=250361470144 It comes with a manual, and soon as I learn Russian, that might actually mean something. (I work with a Russian, though. A real PITA.) Also, I guess that the stylish Russian case you see there is meant for battlefield processing when you invade your neighboring satellite states. I tried to glean some information on the various types of tanks, like the tube Lomo, but would this be considered a rewind tank? I also read that the re-exposure window that this has is important for reversal processing. The thing is, I wanted the system that's the easiest to load. I developed tons of 35mm and 2 1/4 still rolls in the 70s and 80s using conventional tanks and reels, and I swear, my brain is not wired to load a conventional reel. I ALWAYS screwed it up, so I used this acetate sleeve system that Kodak made which was a CINCH. It was basically a curled length of thick acetate (or other plastic) with thick ridges on the edges. You just stuck one length of the film into the looped end, it naturally curled back to a circle, and the thick edges kept the surfaces from touching each other. Yeah, wouldn't work for 100' lengths of 16mm film, but it was great for the other stuff. Anyway, this should be a real adventure. I have some ideas for maintaining temperature control, and my younger son is going to be big part of that.

I pulled the trigger on a 16/35mm tank. (Don't know what the hell I'm doing yet, but I pulled the trigger anyway.) Anyone here do this processing with Microdol, as opposed to D19? I'm reading that Microdol is much finer grain, which is what I want for 7265. Or any OTHER chemistries? Okay--you're right. I'll do a search now. But I just had a fight with my wife and it's so much nicer here in the bedroom than out THERE in the living room with her. It was all her fault, by the way.

Marcus, you might be 15, but you write and communicate better than half of the "older" people out there. You have a good head on your shoulders, which means your half-way home to success.

I'm going for the Ultra 16 to keep things cheaper and easier--plus the Laserbrightening. No lens-col, since for what I want to do, it will be all of my 35mm still primes anyway. Gonna ship it up next week (payday) but paying HALF the total cost at that time. Two weeks later I pay the balance, for him to actually start working on it. Don't know how many of you guys noticed, but there's a recession going on.

HAH! I was just joking basically, and commenting as a viewer--not a film pro.' It was just that after so many of these films--not to mention the Rocky ones--I expected zero, but instead, I really liked it for the action.

I recently read an analysis of b&w filter use, and since I'm just getting into this area myself, I can't comment. But this site said green filters are useless and to be avoided, in that yellow and orange have the same effect on the green spectrum without the negative (meaning bad) effects on other elements in the frame. I know--depending on what you're shooting, there would seem to be a use for it, but damn--this guy's argument and data was pretty convincing in that you get the same effect with the other ones.

Just joking about the too gay! I liked when it looked 16mm-ish at times. Kind of brought you to that time a bit.

First, how come a relative stranger is able to give me a DVD of this last week, with an occasional scroll that indicates it's an awards evaluation copy? And the thing is mint quality? How does this happen? It's not like it was shot on video in a theater. Next, I think the film was way too gay for my tastes. Penn, as always, was amazing. But too gay.

Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color? The absolute best film of this genre ever.

Here's where things get weird. This is Bernie's partial response., and the rest of it has to do with why he doesn't recommend an S16 conversion for a K3: "If you want to get more pixels from a K-3, the mod I would recommend is Ultra 16, which is a lot more viable now that there's a transfer house with a gate designed to process this format, Cinelicious in LA. Paul Korver has a lot of info. on Ultra on this page: http://www.cinelicious.tv/?page_id=39 <http://www.cinelicious.tv/?page_id=39> and we're offering a 10% discount on Ultra 16 conversions at least to the end of this month. "A regular CLA on a K-3 with assassination of the loop formers and collimation/calibration of your zoom lens is $205-235 depending on the age and condition of the camera. When I'm already inside to do an Ultra 16 conversion, I discount the CLA/loop former assassination to $145-170, and then widen the gate on both sides for a total (before the 10% off) of $295-320. Your existing lens would still cover." My questions are: 1) What's a CLA? 2) How can anyone convert to U16 on the basis of just ONE transfer house that does that conversion?

The Smithsonian? But seriously--what do you think a manual would tell you for that camera anyway? You can figure out how to load it, right? The biggest trick is going to figure out exposure. I think you actually crank those those things pretty fast. My guess is you're going to want to shoot b&w Tri-X to replicate the old-time look. At 200 ASA in full sunlight, that means you're going to want to rig some kind of filter system to accommodate neutral density filters, plus red and yellow filters.

25ASA at 250 for 35mm still.