For really long term usability, saving in uncompressed is the best. It takes up a lot of room of course but anyone in the future wouldn't have to worry about what will be an old codec that nobody uses anymore.
It can happen. Just last year a friend who had had a stable long term career as camera operator in a TV station was replaced with a robot camera. He's now cleaning apartment buildings.
Stigmas can be shaken over time. Sometimes quickly.
Well, technically if you get paid for something then you're a professional in it.
I've got paid to edit, assistant edit and do graphics work using FCPX for the past few years.
I've noticed that people are coming back to it. Of course, nowadays they can save face and say "Well, of course it's good now, it was the early versions I didn't like.".
Yeah, that vertical format thing. I see people shooting video of horizontal subjects vertically. They have to pan back and forth to get it all in. Meanwhile they're getting mostly sky and ground. I sometimes ask people why they're shooting a horizontal subject vertically and they look at my like I'm crazy. One guy even said "This is the aspect ratio of today".
The last point is so true. I remember in the past when there was a huge divide between "film" and "video art". They were separate worlds. The film people cared most about image quality and production values and the video people cared about accessibility and unheard voices. Shooting a narrative drama on 29.97 fps interlace video was just not done.
At some point things changed. Audiences didn't care anymore about technical quality, they cared about the story and the message. It could be shot with some awful VHS camcorder and be shaky and out of focus but if it connected with them it mattered more than something that was boring shot in Imax.
So 4K, 8K... whatever, it's all fine. Some subjects need it but you have to remember that most people won't notice the difference between 1080 and 8K, they'll be following the characters as they flow through their story.