Dan Wake

shift + left click

One way is to make a duplicate track of your footage,  and, then, make a mask that is transparent, except for the dead/hot pixels.  Attach that mask to the top video track.  Then, Guassian blur the footage in the top track (that is attached to mask), so that the values/color from the adjacent pixels seep into the hot/dead pixels.
 
Here is a demo:
 

The second one is better.... I've used both and the second one will remain smooth over time, only because its easier to clean and maintain.

I'd be careful when going too "budget". I have bought three cheap sliders. They wobble and stick and are just generally unpleasant to use. If I'd been more sensible I think I'd have bought a (cheapest) Kessler in the first place...

Don't go with such an extremely old card! Get yourself a modern one, I'd suggest getting yourself a  GeForce GTX 1050 Ti , they are in plentiful supply, are dirt cheap, and more than kick ass good enough to handle moderate editing demands. 

The Nvidia is still going to be far superior to internal graphics, the internal is only there to allow a user to access the bios and boot in an emergency. I used an 8800 gtx with Resolve without issue for hd footage.

I certainly see chromatic aberration on some of my old s16 - zeiss 12-120(10-110) and Angenieux 150-150 - but I'm not fussed by it. I shoot with them to get a particular 'classic' look, not to get a super clean and pristine image.

Hi,
Just thought I would share that Avid have just released a free editor for Mac and Windows, Avid Media Composer : First.  According to the website you get 4K editing, 4 video tracks and 8 audio tracks.  
Enjoy
 

in VR il looks that the goal is 32K. 16K per eye AMD wish that apparently
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/50820/amd-chasing-16k-per-eye-32k-144hz-above-vr/index.html
 
so 8K is only like the "Hd Ready" of the VR. incredible.

The current state of video on Canon DSLRs continues to go from bad to worse.
Read the full article

I have a 7D, you can record full sensor Raw in 24p continuously. You can also shoot in a 48fps mode in a wide screen aspect ratio without any need to desqueeze in post.

That looks good to me, very similar to what the Wiggle expression does when dialled down to low parameters in After effects. It is perhaps not a traditional side to side 'Gate Weave' look, but definitely gives a physicality to the locked off shots that look quite natural.
The rhythm to that movement is similar to operator breathing whilst holding a heavier camera as steady as they can...so it is not distracting IMHO. The advantage of adding post moves like this - is that is can (as in your example) make the camera appear to have added weight, and that its nodal point to be further back...like a physically larger and heavier camera. This little visual cue can often give the viewer the impression that it has been shot on a 'movie camera', rather than a super light weight dslr. I often apply stabilisation to my footage (even for tripod pans) at a very low setting. This gives a similar effect of a larger camera being used, since it dampens the camera moves to appear to be a bit softer.
you could even go a bit more subtle for the longer takes - the nice thing is it that these subtle moves work great when very little movement is introduced...just enough to break the staticness of a locked of tripod shot (if that is the intended look). 

I just made a little test, the video has been shot in few minutes (I had no time even for correct framing, focus, I was in hurry I just made it to test this plugin so I used a little tripod to be super stedy). Sorry also for color correction.
Tested one of the Jarle’s Deadpool Handheld Camera presets. I made it because I wish to ask you your feeling about your suspension of disbelief, let me know please.
 

Official Magic Lantern forum for Raw Video - http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=49.0
Updated for 2017 Magic Lantern camera capabilities at EOSHD - http://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/magic-lantern-raw-video-current-camera-capabilities-updated-2017/
Creating a sticky thread for this as it's one of my favourite topics. This thread is just to compliment and contribute to the main magic lantern site.
I am testing:
5D3
5D2
100D (beta / experimental build)
70D (beta / experimental build)
50D
Bitrate calculator:
http://rawcalculator.bitballoon.com/calculator_desktop
Following 70D progress is a priority for me as it's the only one with both Dual Pixel AF and articulated screen... 5D3 doesn't have that!
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=14309.2850
Main builds and ports in progress at Magic Lantern:
https://builds.magiclantern.fm
Experiments including 10bit/12bit raw and 4K raw crop mode:
https://builds.magiclantern.fm/experiments.html
My regards to all the Magic Lantern devs!!

Which clip was that?
I am not saying don't use retro looks. They are in the giant tool box, and everything is permitted. 99% of these tools are there to enhance the experience by reducing the input, to filter out mundane or distracting elements. The content of the images (the 'what' you see) should be as strong in itself as possible, without music enhancing it (and ironically often shiftening and lessening the original impact). A well-composed image will make it easy to choose the right style (the 'how'), be it sDoF, HDR, punchy, black & white, strong grain or moody colors. Or reduced image steadiness.

Just curious how most of the people here afford their gear? Who works full time in video production versus a day job with video as a side gig/hobby?
I freelance full time but it's become apparent that I need to figure out a way to get my rates up, since I can never afford anything. I seem to have a very minimal gear list compared to most people on here. What are your secrets?

if you really can't hire someone try to use a shoulder rig with a camera plus a good microphone. use wide lens so you can be very (always) very very close to the ones who are speaking. be sure the mic is not placed too close to the camera because otherwise it will pickup the noise of the IS system of the lens, or the noise of the aperture ring, the noise of the handling. find a good rig that gives you space to place a mic in a safe zone.

clothes + lavalier may introduce noise if they move, so if they move a lot during speaking hire a sound guy with a boompole (I see no alternative). use lavalier as backup maybe, or for long shots, or where room have too much reverb (rare).
If the sound of the lavaliers is dirty because of the clothes is the end. or if it lost the signal for some reasons, there must be always a sound guy who monitor it. it's a huge mistake to do it without someone who can listen and monitor it (ultra huge).

in VR il looks that the goal is 32K. 16K per eye AMD wish that apparently
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/50820/amd-chasing-16k-per-eye-32k-144hz-above-vr/index.html
 
so 8K is only like the "Hd Ready" of the VR. incredible.

FWIW, I have "misfire".  It sort of works, but the results arent authentic to my tastes.  Tweaking the parameters can get you sort of there, but I just never "felt-it" with that plugin. 
Yes. This is my experience as well. Since I was but a poor lad in my childhood, going to the 1dollar matinees at the second run movie house was my movie-world. 
Bad projection is "film" to me. 

I think its going to be difficult for anyone to give you a definitive answer really because there can be such a broad difference between the light in say a dingy pub and an arena concert so the answer is always going to be 'it depends'.
What might be useful for you though is to go and look on this flickr group of concert photographs.
There are over 200,000 on there from gigs in all different conditions and using all different camera and lens combinations. The majority of pictures have the exif data displayed to show you the ISO/SS and Aperture used so pick a sample set of the sort of level of gigs that you'll be covering and you should be able to get a feel for the exposures required.
I suspect the support with that lens might give you more challenges than the light if you intend to use it handheld.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/concertshots/pool/

The dirty little secret is that everything about film is fake.
Film projection is in itself a magic trick...tricking the brain into thinking that a rapid succession of still images is a continuity of motion. It is only the brain that interprets this into an experience of motion within 'motion pictures'. I totally see some merits in introducing old analogue artifacts from the film days - into digital cinema but I think the key is to be subtle about it if applying at the post stage. I think that a current feeling to some is that a 'connection' to an immersive viewing experience is having a reminder that what is being viewed has gone through a 'process'. What were once unwanted visual artifacts are now welcome visual cues of the 'good old days of film'. A comparison could be the trend of anamorphic flares being provoked so heavily in films these days. When these lenses were first being used in cinema, any flare was considered way too distracting and an obvious technical error to be either cut out or suppressed as much as possible. It is only in hindsight after a technical 'advancement' that many analog artifacts start to have positive or nostalgic memories to people.
I have some old Hi8 and mini DV footage from years ago, it is now the new super8 in terms of provoking nostalgia. It looks quite awesome now because it is so detached from the look of modern digital video quality....but the real reason I think I like it now is because it is associated to memories of being a teenager I have. That is the power of the moving image, regardless of format.
A Grindhouse grungy film effect is easy to achieve in post, but quickly gets boring unless integral to the intended look. Unfortunatly most film look presets default to a similar heavy handed setting that when left as is - giving a very 'fake' feel to things. Subtle layering of grain, weave, fading can give nice results that do not stand out as being ugly, but help make the image more akin to the 'warm' feel of older film. I often use real film scans of grain to overlay digital footage, nothing wrong with that...it is dialed down very low, and often layered and offset 2-3 times to give the image a near invisible  bit of dancing texture that helps take the clinical feel from digital and also helps give an added sense of sharpness to shots where focus was not tack sharp. Adding post effects such as weave/grain/speckle/dust is totally fine in my book if it compliments the visuals and does not distract from the subject.
I'd say at least 70 percent of the 'film look' in digital cinema these days is dictated by camera lens choice and the remaining 30 percent is down to the grade and finishing. Modern multi-coated lenses tend to bake-in a contrast and colour that is very hard to convincingly adjust afterwards, even when dealing with footage from high dynamic range cameras. This is why so many vintage cine primes are still being used on features - giving a more 'organic' feel to the image at the source of the image capture process. I think too many people assume that they can take digital footage shot with kit lenses and post-process the footage to accurately emulate film with one or two simple clicks with a LUT. The truth is that you need to consider lens choice, exposure and have enough latitude in your camera 'negative' to first colour correct and THEN start to grade and finish the image.
The irony is the just before film started to die as a primary cinema acquisition and projection method, it was hitting the pinnacle of impeccably clean, sharp and pristine stocks that could deliver amazing results when combined with the flexibility of a modern DI. Motion picture cameras themselves have hardly changed in 100 years of design. 
Film was never a format that wanted any analog artifacts that many seem to now miss, it was always striving to be as clean and perfect as possible. Makers of Vinyl records never wanted crackles and pops to be heard on a first play - it is only from passage of time and advancement of technology that these audible artifacts become nostalgic and add a layer of pleasant experience to the listener. When CD was introduced, the horrible compression of audio dynamic range made the same songs sound sterile and without life when compared to a vinyl (a technical inferiority)...but many gravitated to the more identifiable 'crackle and pop' as an identifiable 'warm feel' artifact that they missed from the previous technology. I feel a similar thing may have happened with film.
Film can technically outperform digital to this day, especially when considering overall latitude and handling of highlight roll-off and especially when talking about large format...but the Alexa and Alexa 65 is pretty much there in terms as to what traditionalist film people consider a 'filmic' image. 

Yes, many presets default to settings that may not be ideal (often too strong). The trick is to play around with the settings to tune it to taste. Sometimes you can apply an effect onto an adjustment layer, then dial the opacity of that effect layer down and also apply multiple copies of the effect to more adjustment layers in an offset fashion so as to build up an influence that is subtle and not 'intellectually' created by the computer. Same goes with grain/dirt/scratches...subtlety is often key. As mentioned earlier by someone else, After effects has a very simple expression called 'wiggle', there are many good tutorials online to explain how to apply this effect.
Also as mentioned here before, motion tracking real footage is an idea worth trying, but is not nessesarily more of a realistic method, unless you find a perfect range of motion that you can track and loop without noticing the repetition of movement. Two adjustment layers with a small wiggle expression applied will often give a nice random and subtle move that with nicely achieve the gate weave effect, or simply add a bit of life to locked off shots.
I used to work at a large Kodak facility, batch processing photographic film back in the day. When taking digital stills was a novelty back then, yet we had digital to film scanners to give customers physical prints from their images. It was that strange period in time when Kodak could not understand (or want to believe) where the market was going. Within two years of me being there, the plant closed and everything went digital. I then had a short stint at a cine lab, processing and scanning film rushes for features and commercials...the process and machines were very similar. Then I bought myself my first proper camera, a Arri 2c 35mm. Using connections I'd made at work to get stock, I could actually shoot 35mm film for short projects and get it telecined to tape for about the same cost as it was to hire a HD camera back then. Now I've transitioned to post production work (visual effects) and often try to incorporate the analogue methodology whenever I can. Most of what people think they love about the 'film look' is often too nostalgic in my opinion..the artefacts of bad handling/transfer/age of print etc. The real power of Film is it's latitude and colour rendition when selecting negative and print stocks. Thankfully digital has come to a very respectable stage, where good lens choice and a talented colourist can keep most film traditionalists happy. Besides, if you shoot film these days 99.9% of the time your film is projected digitally. Film projection and its degradation through many cycles of showings in theatres is what made a huge influence of the viewers of the 'film' effect.

What about this : 
https://product.tdk.com/info/en/products/flash-storage/flash-storage/tdksmart.html
Let me know your results, I never tested mine actually :D

I saw a video that explain that Zhiyun Crane 3-Axis v2 is not good for heavy gear such as some DSLR Canon. I wish to ask you, if I need a gimbal for my 7D does exist a "one handeld" Gimbal enough strong on the market that may fits my needs please? I would be grateful for your advices!