For me, a cinematic image is one that communicates an idea in visual terms. It isn't just passively recording actors going about their business. It communicates a concept/emotion/mood through framing, lens choice, movement and lighting which re-inforces, comments on or contradicts what is happening on screen.
I saw no performance boost on the free version. 4k h.264 from the GH4 handle perfectly on my system with FCPX and Premiere with no transcoding. DaVinci is choppy, as it was on 12.5.
If Sean Connery had played Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it probably would be regarded as the best Bond film of all time.
That's been their business model from day one, a completely enclosed ecosystem of device and operating system owned solely by them, driven primarily by Steve Jobs' control freak management philosophy. This screwed them in the home PC market, but allowed them to dominate the smart phone market.
Without a way to remotely monitor and trigger stop/start, this is kind of useless.
I think it depends what kind of film you are making. If you are making a suspense driven film like Blood Simple, storyboards or detailed shot lists make sense. Suspense in film is created through visuals and editing, and the more precise you can be the more suspense one can generate. If it's a drama or comedy a more spontaneous approach that gives the performers freedom can be beneficial. That said, the Coens have made some of the funniest films of all time with their approach. Some of their comedies have fallen flat though (Hudsucker and Hail Caeser for me), and that's often because they feel over designed and lacking in spontaneity.