fuzzynormal

You're rather defensive.  I agree with others here (and elsewhere) that these grades look not pleasant.  I get what you are trying to do and that is take blue/green light and make it amber warm showing the cameras ability to grade heavy.  But maybe when people say "I'm not too keen on the look" you might wanna try not coming back with "I know you are but what am I" with "I wanted to test the cameras limits and falsely color the image to my minds eye".   Production Diary?  Going to the park with a beta camera is a production now?  Is that Gorilla Pod your Production rig?  At best, everything to date shot by you on the Gh4 is just a heavily magenta colored vacation video blog of Berlin.  

If you want a cinematic look, f2.8 is a good place to be on the M43 cameras.

I'm not enamored with it to be honest, even though I employed it for a specific purpose in one of my recent doc-shorts.  That insane DOF is just not a visual I'm used to as a guy growing up on American cinema.  
 
However, it's handy for talking head interview shots.  That low-light ability and deep DOF makes those types of compositions a bit easier.
 
Even so, the M43 does impressive DOF too if you want it.

This isn't true in my experience...or else I'm reading different blogs.  You're not going to find much FF references in cinematography magazines for instance.  And since this particular site is about filmmaking on photography equipment, having dual context-understanding between cinema and photography focal lengths is important.

As a person that's also made 5DII-shot documentaries in film festivals (and that matters not) --I'm just saying so many people focus their concerns in directions that ultimately may not be as important as they think.  
 
If 2 stops of dynamic range prevents you from telling a good story, well, that's odd isn't it?  Still, I do know why you'd want that capability.  It's nice, but if you're strapped for cash don't worry about it.  
 
As it happens, I also just wrote that stuff above just for the sake of writing it.  Maybe it's contrarian on a blog that's about gear, but that's my POV.  I'm pretty sure point-of-view is what the entire global internet runs on.  Hubris, opinion, and comatose humans radiating body heat for our alien overloads inside another dimension of reality.
 
You've already said what you have is working and and right now you have no money.  So it seems you're fishing for an affirmation to buy something new?
 
Ultimately, do what you want, but do check out Andy Lee's advice.  I'd say that's spot on.

If you want a cinematic look, f2.8 is a good place to be on the M43 cameras.

I'll say this:  If you think the camera is what's limiting your creativity and productivity in photography, videography, and/or cinematography, you're not doing it right to begin with.
 
...So much more important things to worry about than the camera.  

Here's my simple rant:
 
Everything's good now-a-days.  This kind of stuff is truly getting to be an "angels-on-the-head-of-pins" debate.  Sure there's always some new thing that might solve a particular problem, but how serious is that problem, really?  Worry more about how to interpret light in a productive creative way and you'll be fine whatever you choose.
 
A good cinematographer with an iPhone will always outshoot an amateur with an Alexa.
 
What's more important?  A long zoom lens or knowing how to capture a compelling image?  I'd rather learn the latter and then utilize the former.
 
Until you have some advanced skill at creating images you're not going to run into serious limitations with gear.  You will be the limitation.  In fact, by not compromising your desires you're the one limiting your own potential.  Obstructions can create actual paths to creativity.
 
Best documentary shoot of my life was when I said, "the hell with carrying all that crap" and I hit the road for a month with one 50mm lens.  Had to make do, so I did. 
 
As for cameras, seriously, when it comes to imaging equipment, we're all driving Lamborghinis.  Learn how to shift and steer the damn thing before you fret about the camber of the rear suspension and the downforce of the spoiler.
 
I know all the stuff out there can be overwhelming...but believe me, there are no bad choices for imaging gear in the upper end of the consumer market.  The bad choices happen when you start shooting with ignorance or complacency.  Solve those problems and it'll all be good regardless.  

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back.  Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights.   It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:
 

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back.  Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights.   It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:
 

I've been working on house photography lately.  You can might find some of this interesting  http://maxotics.com/?p=199  Here are my suggestions.
 
1. Almost no house looks good in direct sunlight.  Shoot either early morning, golden hour or when cloudy. If you must shoot in direct sunlight, as Pascal says,  don't let all your shadows go to black.
 
2. I used to shoot some house videos.  Used with an EOS-M or Nex7 (both worked great).  I bought some used Smith Vector quartz lights for about $100.  I just shone them mostly at the ceiling and let bounce light fill the room.  The windows will usually all blow out, but at least the interior will have less noise.  
 
3. Mind your lines! Picasso said if you want someone to look at your painting hang it crooked.  However, I think he meant just a pinch ;)  In any case, make sure everything you shoot, photo or video, has good lines.  (I've been working on this and feel it is something I'll be working on for the rest of my life.) in any case, you want the viewer to feel the house is "striaght". 
 
4. If you have the money, get a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera and an 8mm lens.  That will give you about 24mm.  With lights and a fluid head tripod you will get amazing quality.  Just shoot in prores and do the auto thingJ in Resolve.  Extra work, but NO ONE will touch your videos in quality.  Will the difference show in youtube?  Yes (because h.264 cameras are shadow/detail killers--unless you're lit perfectly within a few stops).  
 
JCS is my God lately, so I don't want to disagree, but I think any sort of speed-booster will have limited use because, except for those cool shallow depth of field shots of a flower pot on the window-sill, you want depth.  For that you need LIGHTS.  Maybe I didn't say that enough.  If you had to get anything I'd get a bunch of small and large flat-panel lights.  Batteries wouldn't be bad.  My biggest problem was running wire from outlets.  
 
I guess that's enough of my silly advice for now.
 
My favorite quote, "Amateurs talk bodies, professionals talk glass and photographers talk light."  LIGHT, LIGHT, LIGHT!  

That's probably a better phrase than "pixel peeking" to be honest.

Exactly.  It's not that the newer resolution technology is getting in the way of creating stills, the style between the disciplines is the bigger issue. Personally, I foresee "still-lifting" as a supplemental tool.  Useful when appropriate.
 
The way I shoot documentary montage sequences doesn't lend itself to great photos, but the way I film certainly works in the editing booth.
 
I also agree that someone will create a hybrid style that does do both at the same time and will do it very well.  It'll happen sooner rather than later.

The 180 degree shutter/frame rate thing is a rule of thumb, not a requirement.
 
You can shoot a high speed shutter on motion picture footage and remove motion blur.  I seem to recall a little film that E.T. director guy made about the Normandy Invasion... kinda popular, used high speed shutter.

"We need to respond to calls for DSLR video quality increase"  
To be pedantic, nowhere in that statement do I hear an affirmation that they WILL increase IQ.

Fuzzy - how did you manage to sell the zoom lens? Isnt it only usable on the gm1? The stabilisation on it is absolutely incredible!

Remember back in the 1970's when guests on the American TV program "The Tonight Show" would sit at the panel with Johnny Carson while wearing those goofy stripped suits and ties and then end up looking like some kind of visual hypnotizing device?
 
No?
 
Just me?
 
Hey!O!

No offers for links on understanding video?

Ha!  Have you ever seen "Big Business"?  It's about as unpretentious of a broad simple comedy as you can get, and it's awesome.  That shit ain't highfalutin', it's just damn funny and one of the most popular films of its era.  And, seriously, MWAMC is nutso-crazy innovative.  They pulled off that stuff over 80 years ago.
 
But I get the point.  So it is: late 20th century to present day.

There's always the GM1 when trying to be innocuous.  It's been working for me.  Certainly no one assumes you're doing anything professional when carrying that camera around, which is great when need be.

There's always the GM1 when trying to be innocuous.  It's been working for me.  Certainly no one assumes you're doing anything professional when carrying that camera around, which is great when need be.

Yup.  Nothing revolutionary, but here we go again.  Really, really incredible imaging products are so cheap and easy to acquire.  I fully expect some 11 year old to imagine a particular piece of cinema that far exceed my talents and/or perspective.  And why not? They'll easily have the gear that lifts them up to be able to do it.
 
And to think I used to shoot on actual film and then have to go through all that post... Man, there's just hardly any barrier between an idea and implementation these days.  Crazy.

Great editing choices too, btw.

Of course they do.  The point I'm making is that the camera is not doing the heavy lifting to make this film what it is.  The imaging tools are now within reach of all of us for not much cash.  Handling all the other stuff?  Especially the artistic capabilities?  Well...
 
That's why I'm here typing about stuff rather than doing it, I suppose.

Here's the thing about that short film.  I could imagine this particular crew shooting it on a 5dIII and achieving the pretty close to the same end  results.  This particular film doesn't live or die by the imaging tech.  Perhaps it's boosted by it, but it's film making that transcends the camera technology.  You're watching people that know how to use their tools, so any tools they have would get utilized appropriately to tell their story.