tupp

I have a fair bit of experience creating patterns and slashes on backgrounds, and unless the desired pattern is complex, you might be better off just cutting what you need out of foamcor and just casting a shadow.  Slashes are easy to make with zero spill using bardoors and/or blackwrap.  With foamcor patterns the spill is not that big of a problem, if you are careful with your doors/snoot and if you leave a big border around the pattern.
If you really need to go with a projection fixture, consider a used Source 4 ellipsoidal.  They have a nice punch and go for as low as US$175 on Ebay (sometimes with the pattern holder included).  In addition, they take standard theatrical patterns -- there are zillions of them.  If you anticipate working mostly in close quarters, get the 36-degree lens (or the 50-degree lens).
 
 

Well I've done a tonne of research and I think I've actually come back full circle to the projection lens. I was previously leaning towards getting some barn-doors and using cookies/flags, but that still seemed like a lot of extra gear (and space) dedicated to reducing spill. 

I think I've figured out what that I need:

Godox SA-P Projection Attachment (which comes with an 85mm lens)
Godox SA-17 Adapter (which makes it fit on to a standard bowens mount)
Selection of Godox Gobos

This seems like it will do what I need, based on what reviews I could find, although I do wish it was available somewhere as a full kit rather than having to buy all the components individually - I just hope I'm not missing something.
 

Your video is easily better than 95% of the work that is out there --  great eye and a nicely coordinated edit.
The narrator did a great job, as well.  Did someone give her line readings?
 
I noticed that the interior shot had slight noise, but I was pixel peeping.  I would guess that you had to stop down due to the high scene contrast.  It certainly was not enough noise to warrant using an unwieldy cinema camera, although it might have been interesting to try a minor adjustment to the E-M10's "Highlights & Shadows" setting.
Your video is a superb and inspiring piece that brings life to a mundane subject.

Maybe not most underrated but the Panasonic S1 is definately underrated outside of this forum. It's giving an FX9 quality image for peanuts. I would say it could compete with the C500 MK2 and C300 MK3 as well. The C500 can see into the shadows better by 2 stops or so, but it doesn't have dual native ISO. The Panasonic S1 can do 4000 iso with 4 stops of headroom in the highlights and a couple in the shadows. That punches the C500 dynamic range in the gut at the same ISO. 

Dito.
I found a GH2 a few months back for dirt cheap and ran across this comparison:
I find it absolutely amazing that the hacked GH2 still holds up in some areas against the GX80, which is a great value proposition in itself. I'd go as far as saying the hacked GH2 still holds up in many ways to current offering by Panasonic (G100). This not a knock on Panasonic but rather congratulating the people who've hacked the GH2. Now, actually prefer working with a GH2 to working with a GX80.

The red line didn't help, but a black Sharpie could quickly fix that.

I think most people went Canon for EF lenses due to autofocus and others went Sony FS7/FS5 and so on for the larger range of camcorders and mirrorless mount.
If Panasonic ever do an L-mount EVA2 with dual pixel AF then it's sure to do better.

The Panasonic EVA1 was a great camera, giving the power of an FS7 (and arguably a prettier picture too) in the smaller form factor of a FS5, but.....  it had a few problems, a few examples:

1) came out too late, the FS7 had already got a firm grip on the low/mid end market (same problem the C300mk2/C300mk3 suffered from)
2) lacked a MFT Mount, thus couldn't build upon the huge huge success Panasonic had created with the GH series (and the rest of their MFT range)
3) Panasonic lacked a history in the S35 market to build upon, unlike Sony or Canon (which had their older F3/FS100/FS700 or C100/C300 etc). Not even on the high end did Panasonic have much of a track recorder having not long ago (relative to the EVA1 launch) brought out their Panasonic Varicam S35. 

The colourist in question was probably referring more to chroma noise, which I think we can all agree is pretty ugly and 'video' looking. I've seen a couple of videos showing how drastically improved even quite clean-looking clips can be once it's removed.

Usually you denoise and then add grain :).

Right, but having a blanket approach of shot on digital = we have to denoise that, every time, suggests a lack of tolerance for even naturally occuring, finely controlled noise, and possibly a love for plastic textures.

I honestly think it just comes down to technology and conditioning. If filmmakers of the past had the ability to DNR the hell out of grainy filmstock, a subset of them would have done just that. They had no such luxury, so they sought out the finest grained stock they could access and/or embraced it as an aesthetic quality of the image. With digital, we developed the technology to scrub the image of noise before people the textures of digital filmmaking had stopped seeming alien, let alone started to be romanticized for its limitations and quirks.
I don't really think it's true that noise destroys resolution, and grain only adds flavour. Large grained filmstock is considered to hold less resolution relative to finer grained stock. Outside of extreme examples of visible FPN in the image, I also don't think the pattern vs random aspect makes much difference to the viewer. In practice, digital noise is perceived as random. 
The appearance of noise varies from camera to camera, but I think it's the kind of imperfection that can prevent images from looking sterile and inhuman. I look at it as the surface of the medium becoming visible. The philosophy that denoising should always be applied to digitally sourced images seems like one that's opposed to to the inherent characteristics of digital, and ironically it's one that ends up creating images even further removed from the world of film. To me it's more interesting to be open to the new. Noise can be ugly, but it can also in the right hands have a soulful texture to it.

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Yes.  Fringing can sometimes be an issue with some ellipsoidal fixtures.  Instruments that use lenses made for slide/film projectors usually exhibit minimal fringing.
 
Use an open-face tungsten or HMI source with a snoot.  Add a tube of blackwrap if the snoot is too short.  That should eliminate most of your spill, and the open-face filament/arc will give you sharp shadows if the fixture is set to full flood.
 
Both open-face and Fresnel fixtures always give their sharpest shadows on full flood.

Yes.  Fringing can sometimes be an issue with some ellipsoidal fixtures.  Instruments that use lenses made for slide/film projectors usually exhibit minimal fringing.
 
Use an open-face tungsten or HMI source with a snoot.  Add a tube of blackwrap if the snoot is too short.  That should eliminate most of your spill, and the open-face filament/arc will give you sharp shadows if the fixture is set to full flood.
 
Both open-face and Fresnel fixtures always give their sharpest shadows on full flood.

If you do use a cookie, try to move it as far from the light as possible (without it being in frame) and having it be as large as possible. The light is probably sharper at full flood than full spot (if you're using a fresnel lens) and you can use black wrap around the light instead of a flag.... maybe.... I'd just get the projector. 😕 

I suspect that even a Bowens mount COB LED is too soft a source for a modifier right in front of it to cut a sharp-edged shadow.
Short of using a really big cookie just off frame, I suspect the shadow will always be too soft because it's unfocused. Unless you can back it way up. The projector kits let you focus the shadow so distance is less of an issue. Some of the projection kits have chromatic abberation but that's the only way to approach this without going totally crazy imo. The Joleko type light is also SUPER useful because you can cut out a 4x4 piece of foamcore/bead board, angle it however you want on a c-stand or just tape it to the ceiling, and bounce a light into it, cut the edges using the blades in the projector, and use it as a soft light source (assuming no fog in the room). Of course with thin LED flex lights this isn't quite as unique as it once was.
Experiment with making a homemade cookie by cutting holes in an old cardboard box. Forget spill or whatever, just see how big it needs to be and at what distance to make shadows that are sharp enough. Maybe it's possible, not sure.

WARNING: Contains some strong language. Does David Lynch think a yappy assistant is trouble? Try getting clawed in the neck on both sides from Canon fanboys and Philip Bloom sheeples.

Yes, we're often camping and working out of vehicles - plenty of lights on the 4WDs, as well as flashlights, headlamps, firelight, etc. Plus needing to light a scene does not always mean it is nighttime.
I do a 4WD Adventure show and we usually rely on the hero vehicle's dual battery/2kw inverter, but sometimes we're away from the main cars for a day or two (eg somewhere that is only accessible by boat/helicopter) and need another solution.
 
IV - Interview
PTC - Piece to camera.

We've got plenty of light off camera. No problems there. This is just specifically for the lighting for remote IV/PTC setups. 600W would be the max if all lights are running but that would not be 100% of the time - just for the 30mins or so to record that piece.
 
If I went the Generator route, I'd be looking at at least 2KW.
If I was in a position that I could run a cable then I would, but it's hard to find a power outlet when you're sometimes 1000km+ from the nearest town!

So sad. 
He was one of my favorite writers and video bloggers.  With his unique and interesting insights, he could easily entertain even when discussing a mundane camera bag or consumer lens.
He certainly contributed to my love for the m43 format.  It's a sad irony that as we find new life being breathed into the these smaller cameras, we have lost one of their most talented advocates.

That’s very sad news.
I’ve watched many of his YouTubes.

David Thorpe passed away on May 25th. For those that aren't familiar, David was a huge proponent of M43 and shared his love of photography on his blog and YouTube channel. 
A message from his family can be read in the description of this video:
His channel is well worth checking out. He was a very thoughtful reviewer. 
His blog is also excellent:
https://m43blog.dthorpe.net/

Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone has any input for on set power solutions? In particular experiences with block batteries versus generators. I'm looking for something to power a laptop and a v-lock charger, as well as LED lights (up to ~600W total) when required.

A battery seems like a much simpler solution and has the ability to have a data/charging station setup in a car or van. And because my work car is also my family car I like the idea of not having it stink like petrol for a week after every shoot just from carting around the generator and petrol can. No problems with sound either if I go the battery route.  However a generator does have the ability to run for much longer because you can keep topping it up, whereas a battery solution would only last a few hours and require charging overnight.

Has anybody had this same dilemma, and what direction did you go in the end?

Yes!  The EOSM with ML raw is amazing, and @ZEEK has a great eye!  EOSM ML raw videos are constantly appearing on YouTube.
This guy also does nice work with the EOSM.