That's not the Meisner technique. The Meisner technique involves exercises that are "rooted in repetition so that the words are deemed insignificant compared to the underlying emotion", such as the popular exercise where two people have a conversation using one word said in different ways.

What the video is lampooning (and article is referencing) is method acting, where an actor's goal is to "experience" a role as opposed to "representing" it, famously seen used by actors like Daniel Day Lewis and Jared Leto, who often go to the lengths of "becoming" their characters throughout the length of the shoot, trying to achieve greater authenticity.

For an actual example of the Meisner technique in action, you can refer to this scene from The Wire, where two detectives investigating a crime scene communicate entirely through physical actions and different inflections on the word "fuck": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdfwFDZGnUk

This article should probably be edited for accuracy.

Here they were: https://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/sony-releases-pricing-availability-for-a7s

It's not that they're not covering everything, it's that nobody who writes for this site cares enough to keep things consistent, coherent, and accurate.

Please stop posting this. This is the fourth time, and if these boards had proper forum functions I would be reporting you for spam.

Also your light is not nearly strong enough to create that bloom you're looking for. You can rub vaseline on your glass and it still won't bloom properly without a strong light source. Please stop buying filters and lenses thinking it will solve everything.

Huge win in selling people expensive electronics. Really a victory for the medium of film.

If you're working with negatives, your best bet is to find the best quality scanner you can, and do some research as to the highest DPI that scanner can scan your images to without artifacting. You'll want to have some headroom for scanned image resolution, so if you're shooting in 1080p, scanning above that will give you room to pan across an image without losing resolutions, and same with 2k and 4k. However, if don't scan too far above your shooting resolution. After a while, that extra resolution is just providing headaches. Honestly, most of this will be solved by going through a quality scanner and carefully reviewing your settings.

In addition to all of this, a bit of lightoom or photoshop tune-up to scanned in images never hurts, like with any other image, to bring out the best in it, just make sure you're not distorting the original image captured.

If you're operating without a scanner and have prints instead of negatives, get a steady tripod and macro lens and use a high quality DSLR to capture the image as accurately as possible.

Good luck! It's more practice and trial and error with projects like that, so just do your best and learn from it.

You do realize that film and development costs alone for that in 35mm would still be roughly $15,000, right? 16mm would be better, but that doesn't include camera rental or any of the myriad of film production costs involved with shooting celluloid. Why would a producer fund any of that when they can just fund an easy digital rental for roughly the same effect and none of the nightmares that come with new filmmakers working with film?

You're acting like your's is a reasonable request but it's anything but. Everyone here has told you the same. Your little experimental project would likely not garner money from producers regardless, because those things don't make money, but adding ridiculous technical additions that you clearly barely understand isn't making the situation any better. Buy a cheap digital camera and show you can make good content with no budget and then talk to producers. As of now, you're just saying, "Hey I have this great idea and no reason for you to think it would work out in any way for you, give me a lot of money." Not what any producers are looking for.

If you're serious about your vision, get serious and realistic about your productions.