Geoff CB

Any connection you make will be valuable.

I just filmed a short for a great director.  I had no idea he used to make movies as a director in L.A. and had taken a break to raise his sons by owning a restaurant, where my wife happened to work. We met, chatted, he saw one of my shorts and loved my camera work. I fell into a great working relationship, hopefully shooting a feature with him next year.

Don't scoff at what you see on display there. If you see someone's else's work that you enjoy chat with them, you never know what might come from it.

I made my last doc for basically free.  Just my wife and I doing everything.  Paid for flights to and from Japan, that was pretty much it.
As for the current film festival circuit:  They're a legacy thing.  Back in the day festivals had clout simply because they were a bigger deal.  Now-a-days they exist to prop up the purveyors on the things and, maybe, actual filmmakers every now-and-again. 
BTW, I'm a film festival producer for our local shin-dig here in SoCal, and I also helped (years ago) to launch one of the current premiere film fests in the mid-south, such as it is.
Ultimately, fests are like everything else these days.  Everybody's doing it since digital made it easy.  It's not a problem to get into some sort of a film festival.  However, it's not easy getting into a good one.  I just got back with my film from a rather lousy fest, that had no serious networking, horrible screenings, poor attendance...yet it was a lot of fun.  My wife and I even gleaned a great nugget of financial info from one of the panels that was wildly invaluable, so you never know... We have our last one in Toronto coming up, and it's gonna be the most "legit" festival we got into.  Still, that might be a lesser experience than our goofy no-budget fest we just attended.
We enjoyed our time at the goofy fest.  We made some new friends.  If you can do that, that's the main thing.  Just be gracious, try to get on the same wavelength as the interesting people you'll meet, and you'll be fine.  At the middle rung and lower rung of festivals, these things are just glorified parties -- if you're lucky!  (Some aren't even that) That's the best you can hope from it.  Having fun and meeting some good folks.
There's really only two or three festivals where industry stuff actually happens and films get "launched."  Because of that, there's only industry films represented.  Unless you're a creative wunderkind that made something uniquely awesome (and entertainingly so) you're probably not going to get into any serious festivals on your own. 
Actually, in spite of making something awesome and new, that actually would probably get you rejected from most film festivals.  The reality is that most selection committees are community regular-joe/jane types.  They're not savvy about film.  If subject matter floats in front of their eyes that they can relate to, they'll ignore all the shortcomings of the flick and give it a big old bear hug, filmmaking craft be damned.  Arguably, this happens with "savvy" festivals as well.
Three actors and three crew.  Make something with that situation.  Learn how to be smart with your time and talent.  It WILL pay off; creatively and professionally.

Reading the actual DPreview interview.. I feel OP may have focused on the negative. The last bit being:
'I think that line between movie photographer and stills photographers has gone. The client wants to you to shoot the both of them at the same time to reduce the costs.'
Kitaoka then expanded on the demands they're hearing from customers: 'First of all, quality of the movie is a basic demand so we have to answer that, second frame rate, then lens quality and autofocus, also, [the challenges of] movie AF and still AF totally different.'
'Movie autofocus needs to be smooth, sometimes fast, sometimes slower, depends on the situation. Movie shooters want to [be able to] choose high speed autofocus or natural speed autofocus.'
'Actually we equip the autofocus system fit for the movie but a lot of people [are finding it difficult to use] autofocus between still photo and movie. But we keep trying to [provide the] best movie autofocus in [our] DSLRs and across every single category.’
https://***URL removed***/interviews/6091205488/nikon-interview-photokina-2016
 
Sounds to me like next generation bodies will have much improved video AF enhancement, +60 FPS, 4K possibly 10-bit / 422 / better codec (IQ seems to come first).. I see this as Nikon is listening and will provide very interesting video solutions on their upcoming DSLRs.. 

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

Yeah, this discussion... opinions on facts :-/
For those interested, the Northrup video comes recommended. He explains and proves his point.
For readers, Dpreview did an extensive piece on it as well, with 2250 comments full of confusion :-)

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

Unless you shoot them wide open almost nobody would be able to tell the difference unless they were looking for it.
Even if you do shoot them wide open, most audiences would not notice, though people on this board probably would.
A7r II Super 35 mode with 28mm Voigt

A7r II Full Frame mode with 40mm Voigt

Seriously, if you want a camera just for low light alongside the NX1, get at D750.

Exactly correct.
F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. 
There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. 
THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!

Hey guys Keh.com has an insane deal going on right now on old lenses 25% off everything.

This. The NX1 showed what could be done. Yeah, it's flawed in some ways, but for a first time outing, it's one badass camera. 
I actually own a Nikon Super-8 camera. For the era and the media, it's pretty badass. Great mix of value and features. Nikon could easily do a sub-$2k cinema camera. Not holding my breath. 

"So there are two types of people. It’s a big problem" 
There are not just two types of people (camera users), there are many many more. And that is not a problem, but an opportunity to make more money by targeting different needs. A company that came up with the Df should already know this. 

Just have one setting: "Unlock Pro Video Settings"

Default send it shipped out set to "Off", but then users can switch it to "On" which will enable several more pages and submenus worth of video settings to be viewable.
Well.... I reckon Nikon are ahead of Canon in the video DSLR game, but the gain is not really large enough for everyone (it is for some though) to make it worth switching, as if you're going to switch away from Canon.... why not just go to Sony or Panasonic instead? That is Nikon's problem in attracting video shooters away from Canon, they can't just moderately beat Canon by little bits (like they have with the D5200, D750, D500, etc).  
They need to also bring out a higher end above that is focused on video to complement their video DSLRs (such as the C100/C300 and FS5/FS7 does).

In a world in which the market share for dedicated stills cameras is massively declining each and every year, Nikon can not survive by focusing on only one or two niches, they need a broader platform to support themselves. The video/film world is an obvious and natural next step for them.
 

I've used the 11-20, love it and the focus ring is physical and a bit stiff, which I like in a wide angle. Good clean look, but difficult to match color wise with other lenses.

Here is my first attempt to intercut the XT-2 with my C100mkII. I had hoped to have the XT-2 as a companion in this way and I'm pretty happy about it already.
Camera settings in the video and more info in the description. Short report is that I used Wide DR and ProNegStd dialed down. I shot the XT-2 in 4K.
pswd: twocam
 
 

If your in the Northeast US check out Lensprotogo, they are great and they do full kits for rent instead of pieces of gear. Their URSA rental includes the viewfinder, shoulder mount, and battery.

Always test a camera yourself. A lot of people dislike the Sony look. But that's also because the Sony cameras have such a array of options to create your own look, canon has the fast turn around. With Sony you have to develop your own workflow. I personally love it, enjoy the look that I've created on my A7r II.
4.6K Fantastic if your shooting a movie at 800 iso. Incredible image with wide DR. However, 1600 is near unusable and it has no ND filters. It is not an event camera. Also you need a lot of light to use the Slow motion option on that camera.
I would rent a FS5 for a weekend and see what you think.

Don't bother with the 1.2. 
It has loads of veiling flare that only goes away at f4 or so. It's not terrible but do you really really that tiny extra bit of performance v a 1.4 or 1.8?
The new Nikon 1.8 primes are really nice. Light, small, well built, autofocus very fast and great value.

They are not focus by wire but they are very undamped and imprecise for video. I wouldn't bother with them.
On the other hand you can't go wrong with AI/AIS lenses. Even the 50mm 1.8 series E I can for free with a film body is perfectly fine on a 1080 body.

They will meter but you wont have AF, also depending on the prime they have very bad focus rings. The AF-D zooms however are some of the best lenses ever made.

It would kill the 80D and GH4 for stills. 
Check that, murder the 80D and GH4 for stills.
Scratch that, kidnap and torture, preform experiments and then make a 4K snuff film of the murder which it sends to the 80D and GH4s families.

I watched until the blackmagic part and then stopped out of fear of getting brain cancer.
 
"Hey let's compare 12-bit 1080p to 8-bit 4K, they look the same, therefore 8bit and raw are the same. Don't mind the resolution. Resolve has similar knobs for both, they're the same! Let's shoot this test with optimal light so as not to strain any of the codecs, yay!"

I've been doing some work recently that requires very accurate colors, so I wasted a few hours cycling through all of the setting in my NX1 and a Xrite Color Checker Passport. I tested all Gamma Control (color, saturation, sharpness, contrast, hue), Picture Wizard Options, Black Level, and Luminance Levels. These were tested in Daylight, Under 90+ CRI LED lights, in ISO 100-800. Fortunately the same settings worked best across ISOs and color temps.

My approach to testing was to record a clip with each variation of setting with the same white balance (using the gray card of the color checker) and then use the Color Match option in Resolve (Source Gamma sRGB, Target Gamma Rec.709, Target Color Space Rec.709, Color Temp 6500, White Level 0.9 Checked) then total the variation in percentage of color accuracy. One weird discovery was that sharpness at 0 had worse color accuracy than at -10 sharpness in Gamma Control settings.

These are the settings I was able to achieve the most accurate colors with:
Luminance Level 0-255
Master Black Level -5
Gamma DR {
Color - 1.00Red, 0.95 Green, 1.00 Blue
Saturation: -3
Sharpness: -10
Contrast: -3
Hue: 0}

 

 
This does result in a overall flat look that I would then grade or apply a Rec.709 LUT to.