fuzzynormal

Well, as I've mentioned, it's hard to ignore a fascinating storyline.  Perpetuating it is a strange compulsion.  Maybe more so for those of us that fancy ourselves as just that: storytellers.
We get to be a part of a so-called-real drama without all the physical messiness of it touching us.
I'm sure there's a sub-study of psychoanalysis being developed in regards to the virtual-ness of this new culture.

Well, as I've mentioned, it's hard to ignore a fascinating storyline.  Perpetuating it is a strange compulsion.  Maybe more so for those of us that fancy ourselves as just that: storytellers.
We get to be a part of a so-called-real drama without all the physical messiness of it touching us.
I'm sure there's a sub-study of psychoanalysis being developed in regards to the virtual-ness of this new culture.

The rapid rise and fall of this threads story arc surpasses the narrative of the theft/plagiarization.

Michaels video blog is the only good thing that has come out of this.
This is like a real life sherlock holmes adventure
 

Agreed.  -5 is the max desaturation, but there's still a good chunk of color info there.

Yup.  Those charts are how part of how Inazuma comes up with his LUT's, for example.

I guess we all like a good intriguing story.  Antagonist vs. Protagonist.  And perhaps, as storytellers ourselves, we might want to shape the plot a little bit.  
Be that as it may, best for me to let things unfold as a passive observer.  Who knows?  Maybe there's a twist that'll catch us by surprise.  
So, I'll mix my metaphors and say that I'm not really ready to light my torch or sharpen the prongs of my pitchfork.
I think we do like it when a smarmy bad guy get what's comin' to 'em, especially one of those snot nosed punk kids (shakes fists at troublemakers playing on my lawn) -- and this narrative looks familiar.  Maybe we can't help it.  Perhaps we've been conditioned by a lifetime of American movie tropes.

I like shooting 8-bit as close as I can to "done."  Bake a nice clean image right into the camera as you like it.

I use the A3G3 setting as well. 

Yeah. Page 116 of the manual. 
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/gx80-85-user-manual.84812/

Its a sub modification within the white balance setting. There's a color graph/grid with numeric values. A3G3 references these color settings. 

Cutting is cutting. If the handle of the knife feels a bit better than some other, that's cool. 
I mean, there was someone on here a year or so ago claiming he edited with After Effects. 
Not sure how that's the most productive thing, but if he made it work for him, why not?
Theres a legacy notion among technical/artistic careers that one needs professional gear to make professional product.  It's up to the individual to determine if that particular notion makes sense for them or not, based on what current consumer tech offers.
FWIW, I moved off FCP7 to Resolve and Premiere (mostly Premiere at the moment) 

Cutting is cutting. If the handle of the knife feels a bit better than some other, that's cool. 
I mean, there was someone on here a year or so ago claiming he edited with After Effects. 
Not sure how that's the most productive thing, but if he made it work for him, why not?
Theres a legacy notion among technical/artistic careers that one needs professional gear to make professional product.  It's up to the individual to determine if that particular notion makes sense for them or not, based on what current consumer tech offers.
FWIW, I moved off FCP7 to Resolve and Premiere (mostly Premiere at the moment) 

Add into it the tendency to evangelize and thus rationalize one's camera purchase... which is a pretty big inclination among enthusiast (and even pros) and you get opinions that are clouded with so much subjective attitude they're sort of worthless.
Bottom line, if it works for you, have at it.

I know that's not true. 

Yeah, but I think maybe the fact that the gx85 doesn't moire as much as the EM5II makes it appear a bit "sharper" in whole. 
Anyway, 4K in the gx85 vs. no 4K in the em5II is a pretty big deal for me at the moment. 
As I've mentioned before, I truly love the ergos and features of the EM5II, and I'm not dismissing it as a great tool, but if 4K is needed, (or desired) well...

Another very competent and impressive hybrid camera.  The x-pro2 was a pleasant surprise and now the xt...
"Serious" cameras, not serious cameras, who's to say?
When every photo and film enthusiast has a great tool in their hand, what comes next, really?
More than past time to be thinking about a post-technical reality in this bizness. 
The xpro2 is a really fun camera.  Fuji has a good handle at making appealing gear. 

I can testify to this. The ibis is not as "aggressive" as the Olympus. Meaning, the floating seasor doesn't compensate-shift as suddenly.  
The Pany tends to "feather" the sensor adjustments.
In my hands, this means the Oly works slightly better stabilizing while handheld, but on the flip side, it'll behave weird at the end of a tripod pan/tilt as the stabilizer tries to figure out why the body is static all of a sudden. 

Add into it the tendency to evangelize and thus rationalize one's camera purchase... which is a pretty big inclination among enthusiast (and even pros) and you get opinions that are clouded with so much subjective attitude they're sort of worthless.
Bottom line, if it works for you, have at it.

Add into it the tendency to evangelize and thus rationalize one's camera purchase... which is a pretty big inclination among enthusiast (and even pros) and you get opinions that are clouded with so much subjective attitude they're sort of worthless.
Bottom line, if it works for you, have at it.

I can testify to this. The ibis is not as "aggressive" as the Olympus. Meaning, the floating seasor doesn't compensate-shift as suddenly.  
The Pany tends to "feather" the sensor adjustments.
In my hands, this means the Oly works slightly better stabilizing while handheld, but on the flip side, it'll behave weird at the end of a tripod pan/tilt as the stabilizer tries to figure out why the body is static all of a sudden. 

Add into it the tendency to evangelize and thus rationalize one's camera purchase... which is a pretty big inclination among enthusiast (and even pros) and you get opinions that are clouded with so much subjective attitude they're sort of worthless.
Bottom line, if it works for you, have at it.

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.
I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.
It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 
What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.
What get delivered is what counts.*
But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.
Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."
* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Having a decent script is awesome. It's always a challenge to make a great movie, regardless of a strong written foundation.  Hope you can pull it off!
Regarding Vimeo: my wife and I made a very very modest documentary that we put on Vimeo, and we see a trickle of income from it.  We've never bothered to promote it, but it's a topic that has a niche so orders keep floating in.  If you hook into a supporting community, they will prop you up a little bit, which is certainly nice.
If you think your film is good enough for the upper echelon film festivals, then yeah, give it a shot.  
As an active member of a small SoCal film fest I can tell you, we're desperate for films with a creative POV, from filmmakers that have an actual voice.  There's plenty of decently crafted films that we see, (because of the democratization of production gear) but not a heck of a lot that are truly accomplished with compelling and creative cinematic storytelling.  
I'll be completely honest here (so don't tell anyone I wrote this)  --it's personally a bit frustrating to screen some of the films we screen.  But ultimately that's cool.  That's all part of it.  My tastes in film doesn't exactly jibe with the rest of our selection committee's POV.  To put it diplomatically: We're "diverse."  To state it realistically: We put average films in the festival.
1. because we need the programming. 
2. particular topics, rather than cinematic creativity, will appeal to our selection committee.  (This is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm just acknowledging a typical situation of film fests)
As it happens, almost all good films that get submitted to our festival will get into our festival. (there's some ideological politics involved as well that go into the submission decisions --that's the nature of a committee)  But, be that as it may, we're a film festival that's incredibly embraced by our community.  Every single screening during our 5 day festival sees attendance of 150-200 people...and this is in a proper theatre venue that officially seats 185.
So, if you ever get accepted to film festival be wise and do your research regarding what sort of event they present. 
It's a bit much to travel across the nation to attend, go to your screening, and then it's you the filmmaker and only 4 other people in a sunlit conference room with a LCD projector... Experience that firsthand and you'll get a rude awakening of the sad state of some so-called film "festivals" these days.  This doesn't even take into account the festivals that exist solely to generate submission income and then dole out laurels and empty awards, while never even holding physical screenings.  
Our festival may be small, but at least it's legit.
At any rate, PM if you're interested.  I'd like to hear what you got going.  Also:  Good luck in general!

By all means, if you finish the thing and are proud of it, and it doesn't interfere with your film fest ambitions, go out of your way to arrange a screening at a local theater. You can't replicate the cinema experience any other way.  It's a bit of work but always a lot of fun since you'll probably pack the place with friends and family.  BTW, some theaters that knows attendance will be high and will often embrace a one-off showing of a local film.
I made an absolutely horrible horror film years ago.  The biggest redeeming thing about the whole process was the ridiculous opening night!