fuzzynormal

For a lot of handheld I found one just has to "glide" as much as possible.  
 
I think this is easier for shorter people.  The squat walk.
 
The smoother you are, the smoother the shot is, is that's what you want.  You just kind of learn to hand-hold to the best of your ability.  Other things influence it a lot.  Rig, mass, etc.  Bigger cameras off-the-shoulder are actually better for handheld shots, IMHO.  Maybe that's my broadcasting background bias.  
 
But, for instance, I mounted a lead pipe with a bottom weight to a DSLR camera --and used that mass as a steadying device for a lot of walking sequences.  I wanted the shots to look like they were half way between hand-held and steady cam.
 
Again, just depends what you're going for.  The cinematography in a film like Dallas Buyers Club, or say Bourne Identity, is way more involved than just being handheld, obviously.  It's disciplined movement of the lens in relation to the light and character...even if it's deliberately visually chaotic.

Dancing Taco?

Have you seen my reel from 98? It also had a dancing popcorn shrimp on it.

Upper or lower fields?

When I'm here on this site I feel I'm more akin to the self-proclaimed coffee shop "author" that talks more about his typewriter than the stories he should be composing.
 
What do you do to get motivated and create?
 
I'm wrapped up in some ennui over here.  
 
Too much endless corporate work perhaps?  Not sure.  Making a living, but yearning for something more, so there's a lot of wandering aimlessly around the web.  
 
Basically, as a filmmaker, it's hard to feel productive visiting tech blogs like EOSHD...and for some reason it's a way too common destination/distraction.  Curious that, for lots of reasons.
 
It's great for some simple advice, but honestly there's not a ton of actual filmmaking discussion going on.  I think my gear-porn tendencies are a huge liability as an actual creative. 
 
Augh, how to get off one's ass and get something worthwhile made?

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture.

It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture.

It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture.

It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture.

It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

Think maybe it's a light leak through the body of the camera somehow?

Hardware hacks probably would be easy.  
 
That's a small sensor though:  5.75 × 4.28 mm.  Even with lenses built for 16mm, 10.26 x 7.49 mm, you'd have some extensive cropping.  
 
And, Ooooooo, what about our precious shallow DOF?  How can we shoot anything without shallow depth of field!  No one these days is allowed to make movies unless the DOF and bokeh is incredible.  I'm pretty sure one's DIY cinematographer's credentials are in danger of being revoked if an aperture is closed down beyond f4. 

Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
 
FWIW, you clearly said "the brand which launched the Revolution" (a brand = a business entity, a company, not a single product). A "broad statement" doesn't quite fix that. Your thinly veiled personal insult will not turn a brand into a camera, either. It will only make yourself look pathetic. But choose yourself. 

Anyone that wants it is going to have pro level imaging soon soon soon.

Anyone that wants it is going to have pro level imaging soon soon soon.

It's like the infamous explanation of pornography from a 20th century U.S. Supreme Court Judge, "(It's) hard to define, but I know it when I see it."
 
When it comes to good cinematography, I say it's an overall quality that is a sum of all it's parts.  It doesn't have to have DOF or great lighting, but if it artistically defines and supports the story, then it's happening.

If you want to portray a character struggling to move forward, trapped, not making progress, stressed that they're not going to get where they need to be in time, etc.  ...even though he/she is moving toward the lens, a long lens shot is a good way to show that metaphorically.
 
"The Graduate" comes to mind.  The character runs toward the lens but never seems to get closer.
 
Of course, this cinematic trope is used as a joke in "The Holy Grail."

Look nice. But looks too complicated at first. May be I'll get used later.
White text on black is definitely bad. I hate reading DPreview articles because of this. 

Which one is it?  A7s?  GH4?  Nikon?  Canon?  Canikon?  What?
 
Oh, you mean it's not the gear that makes compelling motion pictures, it's artistic skill...?  Oh well, I guess I'll just go look at some DxO sensor charts then instead of looking at this:
 

 
So, yeah, I'm being snarky, but the point is this:  just about everyone has access to viable imaging capabilities now.  The 13 year old girl with a new smartphone has more impressive technology in her hand than most pros did 10 years ago.  The more we worry about specs, the less relevant we become as actual filmmakers.
 
I mean, I kind of wish my profession was a bit more insulated from everyone as a competitor, but the other hand, dang, affordable technology sure is fun!
 
Anyway, my rant stems from standing behind a so-called-pro at the airport yesterday.  He was claiming to a colleague that anything done on a camera lesser than a RED Epic was "amateur hour."  Seems like a ridiculous philosophy to me, but what do I know?  I'm not doing high-end stuff, just making a living on the fringes.  Maybe he's right?

Of course nice cameras make superior pictures. The thing I'm considering is this: everyone has access to decent camera tech and it's only getting better and cheaper.

The more I worry about gear the less time I'm trying to make my skills as an actual filmmaker improve. More and more talented people have access to filmmaking that would have been limited in the past.. Out spending or out buying them when it comes to the gear isn't much of an advantage.

Being able to realize creative filmmaking ideas and solutions seems like a better focus of effort... and I used to love being the techy guy, but I really feel like it's time to let all that go.

Which one is it?  A7s?  GH4?  Nikon?  Canon?  Canikon?  What?
 
Oh, you mean it's not the gear that makes compelling motion pictures, it's artistic skill...?  Oh well, I guess I'll just go look at some DxO sensor charts then instead of looking at this:
 

 
So, yeah, I'm being snarky, but the point is this:  just about everyone has access to viable imaging capabilities now.  The 13 year old girl with a new smartphone has more impressive technology in her hand than most pros did 10 years ago.  The more we worry about specs, the less relevant we become as actual filmmakers.
 
I mean, I kind of wish my profession was a bit more insulated from everyone as a competitor, but the other hand, dang, affordable technology sure is fun!
 
Anyway, my rant stems from standing behind a so-called-pro at the airport yesterday.  He was claiming to a colleague that anything done on a camera lesser than a RED Epic was "amateur hour."  Seems like a ridiculous philosophy to me, but what do I know?  I'm not doing high-end stuff, just making a living on the fringes.  Maybe he's right?

Well, it's not really impossible.  Honest.  You MUST control the lens, however.  It doesn't erase bad camera work.
 
I can testify that it is possible to shoot the "Roma" sort of video handheld with the OLY 5-axis feature.  The main reason the Rome video works:  You'll notice that the editing never shows a shot come to rest after a floating move.  
 
Those are the moments when the stabilizer will create the visual artifacts of it's use that you've asked about.  If those instances were left in the edit, it wouldn't look as impressive.
 
For instance, if you handheld pan to the left and then stop on a subject, the stabilizer system doesn't resolve this motion in a natural way.  It looks mechanical as the movement ends and the frame image comes to rest.
 
But, in the Rome video, the editor just cuts away during continuous moves, so no worries.  If you plan to shoot and edit in a similar way, you can create such a video quite easily and completely hand held.
 
I mean, I've been doing cool mini slider shots myself by leaning around corners/foreground elements and shifting my body around.  I swear camera operation with the OM-D is practically like doing Tai Chi while pointing a camera at something.  That's really the best way to explain it and it does work.
 
Also note that in the Rome video the footage was conformed from 30fps to 24fps, creating a gentle slow-mo effect that also smooths things out a bit.
 
Anyway, I spent about 20 minutes on a small boat floating around Sunda Kelapa harbor yesterday with my OM-D and the stuff looks like it could have been shot on the world's longest dolly track.  For the right kind of shots, it really is that good.
 
You have to be smooth though to begin with!  Accomplished camera work is still needed.  You can't just fling the lens around and expect good results.  The Dixieland video above is not that impressive to me because of this undisciplined shooting.  Smart considered control is a must.
 
Caveat:  Pushing the focal length above 60-ish-mm (Full Frame Equivalent) and emulating dolly moves gets a lot tricker than stuff shot with shorter focal lengths.
 
I will say that I can see myself using this camera WITH a glide-cam type of rig to accomplish incredibly controlled, elegant, and longer moving shots.  It would closely rival the best Steady-Cam shots from the most skilled practitioners.  The combo would be very complimentary.  While I can do glide-cam stuff decent enough, I'm not a pro at it.  The 5-axis would hide those slight flaws I'd otherwise create.
 
Now, if OLY is able to up it's specs with firmware or a new model with new/better tech, then it's really going to tempt traditional users away from their usual brands, I think.  Not sure how long they'll have the 5-axis advantage, and if other manufacturers can eventually match it, but for me right now, today, it's serving a very pragmatic purpose.  It fits the way I need to shoot for my stuff.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Why would a camera manufacturer spend time (money) adding more "power" to an older camera that does nothing to pay their bills?  Why do people believe manufacturers limit or turn off features?  Why would Olympus, which has no video line, throttle back a camera to stop it from competing with their non-existent video cameras?  To me, EOSHD has improved immensely from last year by staying away from this type of (naive to me) conspiracy thinking.  Wake up camera people :)  In a very difficult camera market ALL manufacturers are looking to put in as many features as they can to compete against smart-phones.  A win for any of them is a win for all.  Panasonic didn't come out with 4K out of the blue.  They have been working on this technology for years.  As for Magic Lantern, when the 50D came out there weren't CF cards fast enough to write RAW video.  Anyway, RAW is STILL not for consumers, for a long list of reasons.  I want built-in Canon RAW as much as the next guy, but I don't believe it's as easy a decision as it looks (overheating issues for one).
 
Sadly, people may leave EOSHD because Andrew isn't feeding into this fantasy of picking up a used E-M1 for $300 and turning on 4K video.  They will follow people who feed into the dream, rather than the reality.  This is true in all areas of expertise (why there are so many charlatans).  DON'T FALL FOR IT ;)  

Yup.  It's freaking ridiculous too.  This is the main reason I put up with the other video limitations of the OLY cameras.  The 5 axis feature trumps pixel peeping...if you're actually using the camera to shoot stuff other than a test chart.