Policar

I don't see it. The "look" of lenses is subtle, so much so that I recently confused Summiluxes on a project I'm posting on for S4s, and I normally can tell. (The bokeh and lack of distortion should have been a sign, but it was a short spot in relatively deep focus.)
What makes the difference is the lighting and compositions. A lot of Nikon and Canon glass (and Leica glass) has been rehoused–even by Panavision–and used on major features. When I shot Canon glass against Angenieux higher end zooms the biggest difference was mechanics and the second biggest was actually a quite major advantage in the Angenieux wide open.
That said the skill-set of a videographer and a photographer are closer-matched, so the correlation does exist between those favoring photo gear and giving a "wedding photo" look, but that correlation has more to do with style than with how lenses render. That's a very very subtle distinction.

The NASA quote above is cute, but also gave it away a bit too easily.
The mystery lens is almost certainly a 25-120mm K35 zoom with a 2.4x speedbooster to work on the Ikegami EC-35 2/3'' vacuum tube camera. (The Kubrick lens is a 70mm f1 with a 0.7x speedbooster adapting to 50mm f0.7–or close to it.) Coverage is unusually good for S35 on the original K35 zoom, but I would be VERY VERY surprised if this covered S35/APS-C. That's crazy to assume it would. If it does I'm SHOCKED.
That said, there are two possibilities:
After the speedbooster group is removed and the mount is modified, this becomes a 25-120mm K35 zoom with incorrect markings, making $1.5k an insane steal. That is IF the optical design is really that simple and it's possible to take it apart and retrofit with a PL mount for under $1k or whatever.
If it's not simply as a 25-120mm K35 with a condenser and is actually an entirely different lens, it's still a pretty awesome lens on the t3i with 3x crop mode, giving the genuine K35 look. It might even cover the BMPCC. But the cost of adapting the mount for infinity focus is still there.
 

The NASA quote above is cute, but also gave it away a bit too easily.
The mystery lens is almost certainly a 25-120mm K35 zoom with a 2.4x speedbooster to work on the Ikegami EC-35 2/3'' vacuum tube camera. (The Kubrick lens is a 70mm f1 with a 0.7x speedbooster adapting to 50mm f0.7–or close to it.) Coverage is unusually good for S35 on the original K35 zoom, but I would be VERY VERY surprised if this covered S35/APS-C. That's crazy to assume it would. If it does I'm SHOCKED.
That said, there are two possibilities:
After the speedbooster group is removed and the mount is modified, this becomes a 25-120mm K35 zoom with incorrect markings, making $1.5k an insane steal. That is IF the optical design is really that simple and it's possible to take it apart and retrofit with a PL mount for under $1k or whatever.
If it's not simply as a 25-120mm K35 with a condenser and is actually an entirely different lens, it's still a pretty awesome lens on the t3i with 3x crop mode, giving the genuine K35 look. It might even cover the BMPCC. But the cost of adapting the mount for infinity focus is still there.
 

In that case free isn't uncommon. Or $100-$150/day if there's a bit of budget, whatever covers the cost of gear. I thought it was corporate videos for small businesses, in which case $600/$400 is a low rate if you're the vendor, a pretty normal mid/low end rate if you're a wet hire working for someone else.
 

We're about to see a lot shitty red footage, then.... (not that reduser isn't already full of it).
The GH4/C100/A7S etc. are already capable enough in good hands and much easier to use and light for and operate. They are SHOCKINGLY close to the high end until you really push things far beyond what anyone here is shooting, anyway. Red is nice on the high end, but what they do well doesn't benefit those without the money (in post and in lighting and camera support) to make it workable. The camera is not very workable for a single operator, is a light hog, tricky in post to get the most of, etc. 
And even the Alexa is affordable as a rental. Ever noticed that the most expensive cameras have the best looking footage? It's not because of the camera, it's often because of the cost preventing incompetent people from getting their hands on it. To a point. Lots of rich incompetent people, too, though they also have money to hire decent crew.
Nice car, though. 

If they do, it would be so dumb of them.
Boxster aside, Porsche would be so dumb to release a car for "everyone." 
It would dilute their brand as a desirable high end car.
It would put the car in the hands of people who don't care enough to drive it well, and they'd burn out their transmissions.
Red dodged a bullet by giving up on the 3k/$3,000 camera. No one takes the Scarlet seriously except as an owner/op camera... I can see them lower the price and capability of the scarlet, making it more of a true C100 competitor, but man. If Red does this... DUMB.

The greatest visual director of his generation.

No one is mad at you. At worst jealous. 1DC looks like a gem. 

Doesn't seem that wide to me. Lubezki spends most of his time ultra-wide, Polanski was usually on the wide side of things (40mm anamorphic and 20mm anamorphic), Spielberg hovers around 28mm for the most part... Bay and Woo obviously go super long, too, but spend as much time super wide. 

No one is mad at you. At worst jealous. 1DC looks like a gem. 

No one is mad at you. At worst jealous. 1DC looks like a gem. 

Additive imagers (slide film, digital) increase saturation as brightness approaches 100%.
Negative imagers (color negative film) decrease saturation as brightness approaches 100%.
The Alexa clamps saturation at its highest at 30IRE then gradually decreases it as it approaches blowing out. There's a custom SLOG3 for the F5 that sort of does this, Canon Log and WideDR sort of do this, and Red's new color sort of does this, too. Arri still does it best.
I'm not smart enough to figure out the correlation between those gamuts and saturation clamping, but the a7s blows out to ugly colors unless it's white balanced to that one particular color. Sorry.
This is why I've always liked Canon's cameras and the Alexa. Great color.

​http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html#prettyPhoto
Worth reading. Color negative film (not slides, which is why serious landscape photographers use Velvia or digital to get "insane" colors) grows less saturated as exposure increases, very unlike video. This is why tricks with the lum vs sat curve (in Resolve or Color) can give you a killer "film look" unless highlights blow out under mixed light.
SLOG2 is awful. It can't handle mixed lighting, it doesn't clamp saturation, and the color rendering is... weird. But sony cameras don't HAVE to look bad. Let's look at the F55:
SLOG3:

SLOG3 with Alexa/Dragon style highlight roll-off (color desaturates as brightness increases):

Shocking that Sony hasn't made the latter the default. So caught up in tech but so hopelessly out of touch with aesthetics. Fwiw, the C300 Mk II will get this right. Canon has slowly been improving Canon Log and WideDR modes and their color is already dramatically better than SLOG2, not as good as Arri... yet. Word is Canon Log 2 will be on par with Arri. Red started awful but is getting really good, too.
But if you have an F5, do yourself a favor and download this:
http://community.sony.com/t5/F5-F55/Release-version-3DLUT-s-for-S-Gamut3-Cine-S-Log3/td-p/287847
A7S owners: 
Can something like this be done with the A7S? A "look" file that clamps saturation at 30IRE. If so I would be much less interested in an A7S2, which NEEDS to be able to do this or it will still have weird color. Internal 4k and 240fps at 1080p would be great, of course. I feel like I'm the only person here whose clients don't request 4k delivery but for me it's not that important, it's just that the internal 1080p in the A7S is really poor relative to the GH4/C300/etc. and 4k gives you room for scaling/stabilization for drone shots.
 

​http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html#prettyPhoto
Worth reading. Color negative film (not slides, which is why serious landscape photographers use Velvia or digital to get "insane" colors) grows less saturated as exposure increases, very unlike video. This is why tricks with the lum vs sat curve (in Resolve or Color) can give you a killer "film look" unless highlights blow out under mixed light.
SLOG2 is awful. It can't handle mixed lighting, it doesn't clamp saturation, and the color rendering is... weird. But sony cameras don't HAVE to look bad. Let's look at the F55:
SLOG3:

SLOG3 with Alexa/Dragon style highlight roll-off (color desaturates as brightness increases):

Shocking that Sony hasn't made the latter the default. So caught up in tech but so hopelessly out of touch with aesthetics. Fwiw, the C300 Mk II will get this right. Canon has slowly been improving Canon Log and WideDR modes and their color is already dramatically better than SLOG2, not as good as Arri... yet. Word is Canon Log 2 will be on par with Arri. Red started awful but is getting really good, too.
But if you have an F5, do yourself a favor and download this:
http://community.sony.com/t5/F5-F55/Release-version-3DLUT-s-for-S-Gamut3-Cine-S-Log3/td-p/287847
A7S owners: 
Can something like this be done with the A7S? A "look" file that clamps saturation at 30IRE. If so I would be much less interested in an A7S2, which NEEDS to be able to do this or it will still have weird color. Internal 4k and 240fps at 1080p would be great, of course. I feel like I'm the only person here whose clients don't request 4k delivery but for me it's not that important, it's just that the internal 1080p in the A7S is really poor relative to the GH4/C300/etc. and 4k gives you room for scaling/stabilization for drone shots.
 

This is why they sell light meters.

This is why they sell light meters.

It looks good to me, too, but macro photography hardly needs as much edge sharpness as a wide shot or something.
It's probably decent software. The price is right. You don't need anyone's permission to buy what you want, but Neat Video is absurdly good for the price and you'll consistently hear people raving about it. It's also kinda slow to render and occasionally finicky, but not bad. 
Worst case scenario you're out $30. 

​By f5.6.
 
Fwiw, to whomever above said the Leica lens has better DR.... that just means worse contrast.
 
The whole "vintage" thing was set off largely because worse lenses provided a better "look" on digital cameras.

Tried using it at 35mm on my Mark III but found the fall-off unusable unless you want a strong "vignette" effect combined with a "bad edges" effect.
Completely unusable at any focal length on FF. Stop kidding yourself.

The DVX100 had the impossibly fortuity of being
a) an amazing low end broadcast camera/higher-end b camera with fantastic ergonomics and a standard format (miniDV) magically married to an unprecedented feature-set (24p!! and "looks"!!!!!!) that was scooped up by broadcast shooters and wedding videographers alike
and
b) the best "film look"/hobbyist camera for the money by FAR... with mojo (currently only Arri and to a lesser extent Canon and Dragon have mojo)
In my day we had six stops of DR ISO 320 deep focus fixed lenses and 720X480 at best. And we walked six miles through the snow. Uphill. AND WE LIKED IT.
NOTHING will ever target those two markets like the DVX did. Currently, Canon has corned one the first. Sony/Panasonic/Black Magic/a whole heck of a lot of others are scrambling to tackle the second.
This could do well at making headway into the first, though. Shooters who balk at the awkwardness of a C100 and 24-105mm f4 IS will happily migrate to a more ENG-happy all-in-one package and shooters who balk at $20,000 for a C300 and 4k might happily choose this instead. The added depth of field will be wonderful for those who struggle to focus with a Canon, too.
Ask yourself a question.... does raw appeal to you at all? Does a codec bigger than 50Mbps make you happy for the bits or sad for the disk space...
If your answer is yes... you want the fun of figuring it out and encoding and ingesting and grading and making magic, this is not for you.
If your answer is no... I want to deliver fast and make money.... it might be.
The AF100 is VERY well-respected in pro circles. TONS of high end corporate and lower-end tv etc.... is shot on this workhouse cam that is rock-solid. Does the dvx200 have timecode sync? That is the biggest omission. This is really cool but not for me and not for most of you. 
Curious to see how it does. This (4k low end ENG camera/hobbyist camera for the not-super-techically-obsessed) is new idea. Do not want one, however...

​I've had to intercut Canon and Alexa footage and it can be shockingly seamless. It's done on a lot of high end shows (Rush, Wolf of Wall Street, Need for Speed, tons of tv and surprisingly it's the Canon on the jib/crane getting the wide and the Alexas picking off coverage... only no one realizes that the shots aren't Alexa). But it sure takes a lot of work and you have to use the Canon either for close ups, low light, or low dynamic range portions of the image or expose more carefully because the Alexa just cleans up in terms of highlight roll off and rolling shutter reduction, though not much else. I'm also ashamed to admit that the best footage I've shot has been on the C100 (and some decent Epic stuff) and some of the worst footage I've shot was on the Alexa. But between the two cameras, the Alexa is SO MUCH better as regards IQ and the ergonomics are a miracle if you're transitioning from 35mm (not from dSLR).
The C300 Mk II sample video does look troublingly awful, though. 
Canon's choice to go 8.7 under and 6.3 over (was it?) really bothers me. I was assuming they'd go for 6.7 under and 8.3 over (the Alexa is 7/7) when I learned about the C300 Mk II well before NAB. I think there will be a lot of C300 Mk II footage that looks so good we assume it's Alexa footage (and fwiw that video doesn't look that great to my eye, so obviously it's all about taste!) and you can redistribute your DR a lot better with a 10 bit codec than an 8 bit one and the "looks" designed to match other cameras will make this thing sell. Canon's roll-off doesn't oversaturate like SLOG2, but it's not quite Alexa.
Blue Ruin was made by a lot of my friends. And I think it looks better than the video you mentioned, which has a cool anamorphic look and not much as regards composition or purpose and the lighting is very "broad strokes." Oddly enough, their mantra was more "camera doesn't matter, look doesn't matter, story matters" and yet it's the best-looking C300 feature I've seen. Really talented group of just awesome people!
I don't think you could shoot Skyfall on a C300, though. Canon is a little plasticky and digital, though the look is excellent overall and the overall ergonomics/workflow make it very attractive at the low-end professional segment. I anticipate the C300 Mk will be the best of the best overall below Alexa (with the Dragon, which is great, cleaning up when you have the light to feed that hungry beast, but not under challenging conditions....), but the Alexa is the gold standard for a reason.
That said, if your work looks worse than the video you've mentioned, and you have the budget to work at that level, camera isn't what's holding you back.
 
 

The DVX100 had the impossibly fortuity of being
a) an amazing low end broadcast camera/higher-end b camera with fantastic ergonomics and a standard format (miniDV) magically married to an unprecedented feature-set (24p!! and "looks"!!!!!!) that was scooped up by broadcast shooters and wedding videographers alike
and
b) the best "film look"/hobbyist camera for the money by FAR... with mojo (currently only Arri and to a lesser extent Canon and Dragon have mojo)
In my day we had six stops of DR ISO 320 deep focus fixed lenses and 720X480 at best. And we walked six miles through the snow. Uphill. AND WE LIKED IT.
NOTHING will ever target those two markets like the DVX did. Currently, Canon has corned one the first. Sony/Panasonic/Black Magic/a whole heck of a lot of others are scrambling to tackle the second.
This could do well at making headway into the first, though. Shooters who balk at the awkwardness of a C100 and 24-105mm f4 IS will happily migrate to a more ENG-happy all-in-one package and shooters who balk at $20,000 for a C300 and 4k might happily choose this instead. The added depth of field will be wonderful for those who struggle to focus with a Canon, too.
Ask yourself a question.... does raw appeal to you at all? Does a codec bigger than 50Mbps make you happy for the bits or sad for the disk space...
If your answer is yes... you want the fun of figuring it out and encoding and ingesting and grading and making magic, this is not for you.
If your answer is no... I want to deliver fast and make money.... it might be.
The AF100 is VERY well-respected in pro circles. TONS of high end corporate and lower-end tv etc.... is shot on this workhouse cam that is rock-solid. Does the dvx200 have timecode sync? That is the biggest omission. This is really cool but not for me and not for most of you. 
Curious to see how it does. This (4k low end ENG camera/hobbyist camera for the not-super-techically-obsessed) is new idea. Do not want one, however...

How are they creating a revolution? By having a lens mount no one can use and an expensive camera with esoteric specs and difficult-to-use assets?

The CX00 line has the best image rendering available short of the Alexa (worse highlight rendering than the Dragon, but much better noise pattern and low light and color) and this is a STEAL. But the C300 Mark II has some features that are really disruptive (and oddly forward-thinking) so investing now might not be the best choice, especially among the IQ-centric audience that populates enthusiast sites.
Canon (and Arri) are after the "pro" market. Which is all about "good enough" out of the box, because when you're "pro" you get paid and so hiring a crew and post team costs money. The focus isn't image quality. A low bitrate is desirable, as is an image that doesn't need (or have) much flexibility for grading... It's decent 1080p that has small file sizes in an easy-to-ingest format that attract the pros. Not because they're better or more talented (clearly they aren't judging by the quality of reality tv) but because they care about money first and a camera with small file sizes, amazing ergonomics, and a great image out of the box gets you the most for you money. For enthusiasts who enjoy grading and 4k and want the best IQ (if you like raw, don't get Canon–I can't stand raw because it wastes my time, so I love Canon)... go with something that's more techie and more fun. For wedding videographers and professional shooters on the low end, get what your clients prefer (Canon or Alexa more toward the high end).
That said, I like to judge images based on images and not specs. Canon's 1080p is sharper than anyone else's (not sharper than others' 4k, though, but 99% of the world is delivering to 1080p) and their colors are better than anyone other than maybe Arri. Sony's images have been garbage until SLOG 3 started to fix saturation clamping and color matrices but it's still nowhere near Canon level. Dragon Color is quite good, however, on the Red side. But the saturation clamping, skin tones, etc from Canon... brilliant. WideDR is a fantastic color space and Canon Log is sort of functional for what it is. 
The C300 isn't an enthusiast product, it's for pros (who care about money they can make back over image quality and about ergonomics; this is why the 1DX is 18MP to the enthusiast's 5DSR's 50+ MP but the 1DX has killer AF and durability) and so it is hard to recommend Canon to most people on this forum.
Especially when the C300 Mark II outclasses the Alexa. But it won't come cheap.

If it's real, Canon needs to fire its graphic designers. But it isn't. It's not just fake, it's ridiculous. What this artist lacks in talent he makes up for in wild imagination.
Though, shockingly... a few of those specs are spot-on!