As much as I'd like to give a snarky response to this, my advice is to hit up film students or hobbyists. And treat them well. And feed them. And don't waste their time. And if they do a reasonable job, actively promote them and send business their way.
If you aren't prepared to do that, good luck.
Lol this was still snarky...
I saw the film and could tell it was CG just because I knew he was dead and I understand enough about CG to recognize its current limitations. However, my brother couldn't tell it was CG. Also watched it with my fiancee and her family and they couldn't tell it was CG either. They also had no idea that was even possible.
This debate reminds me of the obsession filmmakers have with cameras and which one is "best" or "better" than another. Obviously we all want to strive for making better and better images and better cameras and tools aid in that, but in reality, for most audiences, they won't be able to tell the difference just like most audiences won't be able to tell that Tarkin and Leia were CG.
I know you said in your post that you don't think lighting would be worth while but I would have to disagree. There are many small, portable, reasonably priced, reasonable quality, LED lights that you could have in your bag that will help greatly with getting a cinematic look. Another thing that could help a lot would be a cheap reflector. If you're shooting in daylight very close to your subject even something like wearing a white shirt could make a difference in making an image look better.
Casey Neistat shoots lots of vlogs/videos in a travel/doc style and even he uses lighting in certain scenarios.
Also if you're in love with shallow depth of field a GH4 would be the opposite of what you're looking for as that has a smaller sensor than the 70D. Get a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens or faster for the shallow depth of field, then learn some lighting and color-grading techniques. Those are a few tips.
Clicked link. Saw a couple comments on the video. Came back to post. Saw the username. Felt good about myself for recognizing a troll.
Actually (I could be wrong) I'm pretty sure the camera IS processing the video internally before sending a stream out through HDMI. Think of a graphics card in a computer. The graphics card processes the video and then sends it to the monitor. Essentially there's a "graphics card" in the camera sending a stream out through HDMI which then can be monitored and recorded. Processing happens internally, but data is written onto a hard drive externally in the case of sending a signal out through HDMI.
Also I remember hearing about Canon using mpeg for their 4k video because the processors are very efficient at encoding that format for some reason, so I'm pretty sure the hardware in a camera is built for a very specific purpose. Basically I'm saying I wouldn't doubt if this was a hardware issue more than a software issue. Either way there will be an a7s3 coming out that'll probably blow the GH5 out of the water so I'm not worried. The a7sii still produces fantastic images! At much lower file sizes!
I'm starting to see multiple meanings in this! It was supposed to come across as a "whoa" moment when she falls out of the wheelchair. We purposely didn't show the bottom part of her body in the studio in order to not reveal that she was in a wheelchair.
You're definitely right about how difficult it is to convey the deep and abstract concepts. We were trying to convey her feeling of freedom while she is dancing, even though she is in the wheelchair. Thanks for your insights!