kye

Filmic Pro is bettered by mcpro24fps on Android in my opinion. But neither are the same proposition as Motion Cam as neither shoot raw video, which is its own thing entirely. The way the image looks, the way it bypasses the phone's processing, the way you grade it, is all totally unique to raw.

I don't know what to tell you man! Acting like you're against shooting "eye level," when literally every still photograph, every piece of 16mm, Super 8 etc, is all shot from eye level. You seem to have issues with literally every practical solution!
The "head on a swivel" type movements you can get with an EVF create much more interesting footage than swaying from the hip.
I think you need to prioritize the stability of the camera over the exact camera height. The Bolex 16mm cameras ergonomically are far better than other cameras I use regularly. You can use your body to get lower for lower angles etc.
To summarize, there's really only a few solutions that can solve your problem. The more you add, the smoother your footage will be.
- More Weight
- More Points of Contact (EVF / Pistol Grip.)
- Wider Lens

what about one of these ?

not as bulky as the tube based steady cams or  quite so obvious. If a slr balances on it your camera should do it easily. Plus probably less than $30 so its not a huge outlay if it goes pear shaped. 
I'm of the opinion that with the rise of youtube you see a lot more people waving cameras and phones around mostly phones but i see the occasional camera, also seen a few of those  dji osmo things as well.
I also think if you feel self conscious then it will show. maybe throw on some hi vis and a press shirt... you know face your fears 😀 
another thing i notice if people are around then they will look, however if their any where near the front of the camera they look everywhere but the camera  
If its any sort of event sporting or whatever there going to be other with cameras and or phones,  i like to think i look like a serious amateur. well thats what i tell myself anyway 🙄
Only issue i face i guess is pulling the drone out, That can be quite polarizing. Theres a 50/50 chance of running into someone named karen 😨

I normally always say, “I would like” and silently correct people who say, “I want” which does indeed sound very self-deserving, so only used it in the continuation of the “I wants” above.
I would however like to obtain the said three items at some point, if I can afford and deserve them 😜

I'm gradually pushing myself to see how basic/manual a camera I can get away with using as a proof of concept.  That's why I'm shooting with my P2K and my GX85 in full-manual.  
If I find that these things are do-able then it will put cameras like the P4K, P6K Pro, Sigma FP, etc on the potential list, which have much nicer image quality and DR than the GH5 and (potentially) GH6.  We haven't seen a lot from the GH6 but that just means that the jury is still out on it, rather than it being ruled out.
Whenever I hear someone saying "I want.." as some sort of statement that implies they should get it just because they want it, I just reply with "I want a Lamborghini." and normally follow it with "what's your point?" or "but back here in reality" or "I love to dream" etc...  The kids probably find it annoying as hell but it amuses me no end!

I want a Porsche 911, a motorhome and a Nikon Z9. In any order.

I want to want to want to not want to want a new camera 😅
 
Yeah I suppose that statement sounds silly. But in my case it’s true. I don’t want to want a new camera haha

I'm comparing UHD on a 1080p timeline, but they're rough figures anyway.
In terms of not being able to see 1-2 stops of DR difference, if its right at the edges of what is visible then yeah, you can totally see it.  Have you ever even shot in uncontrolled conditions and tried to pull detail from both ends of the spectrum?  It's really sounding like you haven't because I have, and it's really quite obvious.

https://www.cined.com/fujifilm-x-t3-review/ And you are not even comparing the same test to each other. It would be 12.4 at max not 13. Like you are really going to see 1 to 1.2 stops with you eye.

Everyone wants a new camera all the time.  Except when they're asleep, and when they're thinking about what they're shooting and what is in the final video.  

And that goes for anything, not just DR.
When ‘stuff’ looks (or sounds) better, folks do notice, but it tends to be in a more subliminal manner.
When something is off though, it tends to jar and be highly noticeable.
Negative stuff is harder to get right and easier to get wrong.
I’m always doing stuff with my work, photo and video to not so much improve it, but remove any obvious elements that will take away from it.
And then there is the pride factor in your own work, doing more than you need to even though 99.9% of other people will never notice.
It’s often all the little stuff that adds up to make the whole.

You're thinking about this wrong.
The P4K / P6K / P6K Pro have a very strong feature-set and this addition gives them PDAF.  The only other ways to add good AF to a setup the same way is to either hire a focus puller, or to upgrade to a camera that has everything the BM cameras have but also has PDAF.  Either of these options easily runs into the tens-of-thousands-of-dollars.
The problem with cameras is that people don't compare the full package, only isolated features, but when you're buying a camera you can get one feature very cheap, but for each extra feature you want it multiplies the cost - by the time you have internal RAW and 13 stops of DR the addition of PDAF creates a pretty small and expensive list of potential candidates.  

You're thinking about this wrong.
The P4K / P6K / P6K Pro have a very strong feature-set and this addition gives them PDAF.  The only other ways to add good AF to a setup the same way is to either hire a focus puller, or to upgrade to a camera that has everything the BM cameras have but also has PDAF.  Either of these options easily runs into the tens-of-thousands-of-dollars.
The problem with cameras is that people don't compare the full package, only isolated features, but when you're buying a camera you can get one feature very cheap, but for each extra feature you want it multiplies the cost - by the time you have internal RAW and 13 stops of DR the addition of PDAF creates a pretty small and expensive list of potential candidates.  

You're thinking about this wrong - when you shoot LOG you create highlight rolloff in post using the methods I have mentioned.  For all practical purposes, all cameras are just large arrays of linear light measurement - they don't have any highlight rolloff at all.  
The "Look" of each camera is defined almost exclusively by the colour processing that happens after the image is captured (and a tiny bit by the sensor) and when you shoot log you're in control of the vast majority of that processing that occurs.
I couldn't find reliable DR tests for the Z6, but the GH5 doesn't compare well to the XT-3...  GH5 v1 has 10.8 stops, GH5 v2 has 11.5 and XT-3 has 13 stops.  
DR can make more of a difference than many people think when shooting in uncontrolled conditions and when it's not just art but needs to be informational as well.  In shooting the GH5 v1 I am often forced to choose between clipping the whole sky and being able to identify the person sitting in the shade.  A choice between "here's a photo of Susan and the sky is digital white" and "here's a nice photo of ....  someone? who is that?" isn't a choice that I enjoy having to make.
Of course, this choice is actually a factor of how usable the image is in latitude tests rather than just DR as a single digit.  Having a photo of Susan where she's bright purple is better than her not being recognisable, but still leaves a huge amount to be desired.

Guess I’ve got to accept the facts. If I want the high DR look in even difficult evironments, I just have to shoot log. I’m actually considering selling my z6 and switching to a Fuji xt3, I think I could live without IBIS but having internal 10 bit log would be so nice for keeping things compact. I would use some of the fast sigma or viltrox 1.4 primes. How do you think the FLOG image would compare to my full frame NLOG image?

I’m not really sure how to answer this…
For one thing, I rarely look at what anyone else is doing as it’s such a rabbit hole.
Otherwise, I have a plan of sorts in regard to what I shoot with both stills and video, and there is some crossover, but at the same time elements unique to each.
Ceremonies and speeches for instance I use 2 ‘extra’ static cameras which leaves me free to roam, mostly shooting stills.
Details that a lot of pure videographers shoot, I tend to ignore and leave purely to stills.
Candid people tends to be the biggest crossover area when I tend to capture the same scene in both formats ‘at the same time’, ie, seconds apart.
There is also quite a bit of focal length difference.
I dunno, it kind of just is what it is and kind of evolved by itself over the last 12 years I have been shooting hybrid… 🤷‍♂️

The ultimate statement about DR is perhaps that people shooting with an Alexa or RED which have the highest DR capturing around still light and control their contrast ratios.  Yes, they can push and pull the RAW / Prores files from those cameras in ways that we can only dream of, but they still take the time and effort to capture it right in-camera.
There's no substitute for making your scene look how you want it, even if you have 15+ stops of DR and have 14-bit RAW.

There's no substitute for dynamic range.  
Ultimately you can emulate the nice rolloff (highlights, shadows, or both) of high-DR cameras by using curves but that will increase the contrast of the image.  If there's already lots of contrast in the image then you can emulate the lower-contrast look by reducing contrast so the mid-tones are softer, but that will ruthlessly reveal your white and black clipping levels.
Another trick is to raise the levels of your image, which means you have some extra space to lower contrast or rolloff the highlights nicely, but that will raise your noise and black levels, so the trick is to apply noise to mask this.  The cost of this look is that you'll have elevated black levels and lots of noise in the image.  It's not really for modern work but it can work for vintage / film looks though.
High DR cameras are desirable because they give you the flexibility in post to choose whichever look you want, but lower-DR captures (like 709 profiles that don't include the full DR of the camera) simply can't do everything - you have to choose the trade-offs.
Higher DR cameras are also a challenge in post because you're trying to pack all the DR into the lower-DR 709 profile to publish them, so in a way your lower-DR capture is just doing in prod what you would have to do somehow in post anyway, except that you don't get to fine-tune or apply curves like you can in post.  I shoot higher DR shots with moderate DR cameras (GH5 HLG which is almost 11 stops and OG BMPCC and BMMCC which are 12.5 stops) and even these are difficult in the grade when you are capturing the full DR on these.

The ultimate statement about DR is perhaps that people shooting with an Alexa or RED which have the highest DR capturing around still light and control their contrast ratios.  Yes, they can push and pull the RAW / Prores files from those cameras in ways that we can only dream of, but they still take the time and effort to capture it right in-camera.
There's no substitute for making your scene look how you want it, even if you have 15+ stops of DR and have 14-bit RAW.

Sure: https://firehorsephotographyfrance.com/2022-weddings/the-two-sams-wedding
90% handheld with a pair of S1R’s, Sigma 35mm f2 and 65mm f2, 5k 30p plus church (dim) and barn speeches (dark, lit with single LED panel), S1H and S5 in 4k 60p.
There’s shade, bright sunlight, backlighting, golden hour…the lot.
There’s even some AF tracking! 😬
And a bit of lighting flicker/banding so gone back to shooting 25p and 50p as a result!
Flat profile, light grade as previously described. I’m not a grading expert so it’s more a ‘good enough for the purpose’ grade.
Pity the 5k is not available in 50/60p, but then there’s a 15 minute record limit for 5k on the S1R so not good for ceremonies or speeches.
So for now, I use the 4/5k mix and look forward to seeing what Panny do next with the S line.

Have you tried playing with Saturation vs Colour Boost?  Sat expands all saturation evenly, whereas CB only expands the low-sat stuff and doesn't increase the high-sat stuff, so using various combinations of them you might have a setting that doesn't need any masks.  Maybe a combo of Sat with negative CB to boost stronger colours and not over-do the skintones?
Any time you can apply an overall adjustment vs pulling a key is always safer.
You could also try the spider-web tool (Colour Warper) to boost sat for all hues except the skintones?

Have you tried playing with Saturation vs Colour Boost?  Sat expands all saturation evenly, whereas CB only expands the low-sat stuff and doesn't increase the high-sat stuff, so using various combinations of them you might have a setting that doesn't need any masks.  Maybe a combo of Sat with negative CB to boost stronger colours and not over-do the skintones?
Any time you can apply an overall adjustment vs pulling a key is always safer.
You could also try the spider-web tool (Colour Warper) to boost sat for all hues except the skintones?

Yeah, they seem to over-blur the things close behind the subject and under-blur the things a long way behind the subject. I would have thought that they'd apply a progressive blur?  The depth-camera is surely able to give zones where things are further away, although the more zones you have the more edges you have to navigate so I guess that's a potential issue.
For me it's the lack of progression to being blurred that makes them look odd.  I saw a video the other day where the subject filmed at a wide aperture in front of a landscape with everything a long way from the subject and it created this two-levels kind of look which immediately looked fake, but I think it was real and just how the scene was.
It's kind of like when 3D graphics first got good and you'd get used to the tell-tale signs of how they looked fake, but every now and then you'd see one of those signs in real-life and do a double-take.  

Sure - I'll revise my statement to "They're essentially really good, really small, really affordable, camcorders."
Were you comparing the "Smell of Village" video to the OG BMPCC?  If so, the video looked good and was obviously shot as RAW, but beyond it being RAW and deep DoF, it doesn't look anything like a OG BMPCC to me.  It looks more like a smartphone that can record RAW.
I looked at OG BMPCC footage only days ago, and even SOOC the footage just screamed "film" to me.  The grain and texture and resolution and sharpness are all on-point for film, and nothing like the high-quality high-resolution very-modern presentation of that "Smell of Village" film.
I've said it in other threads but it's worth repeating - I think people have forgotten what film actually used to look like.  If someone posted stills of non-recognisable moments from big blockbuster films and TV shows shot on film, the response would be akin to "your lens is broken" rather than "looks cinematic".

The P2K is under 70mm tall.  The Crane M is 346mm tall, and the rig looks like it would be taller with the camera mounted on it...  so literally 5 times taller!
I'm not even sure it would fit into my bag either 🙂   
Maybe you don't get odd looks when you're using it in public, but I've used a phone gimbal before and people looked at me like I was carrying a sword rather than a gimbal.  I'm not entirely convinced that it would hold up in the howling wind either, which is basically the point - if the wind wasn't so strong I wouldn't have had so much of a rotation problem to begin with and OIS would have been fine.