Something to note from someone who done fight choreography for film and been practicing Martial Arts for years.... None of the moves in fighting films are real. All of them, punches, kicks, blocks and takedowns are designed to look good on camera and to be safe for the on camera talent to perform several times over. Its the illusion of pain. Having said that, they are all rooted in actual real world maneuvers that do work, the main difference being when you do to an opponent in real life, its meant to take them out for good. So yes in principle, the between the leg takedown is an actual and if executed properly, completely effective technique. It just doesn't look as clean as presented in the movies.
Clip fails on the fact that it features the moves performed by not just one but 2 UFC fighters, one of whom is/was an olympic level judoka.
I mean to be fair, the Skypanel is like the LED equivalent to an HMI, which they do use in film schools. And if he's able to afford a skypanel, clearly he's doing something right. I think the point was that he was using a single light that had a large output and he was able to go from there. He addressed what light he was using because people are gonna ask what that light was any way.
For corporate/live event work, its really good. Shooting in 4k and downscaling to 1080p helps with any noise and sharpness issues, mechanically its solid and the gimbal works very well. I've used it for select shots in narrative and you have to have a lot of light to make it work, but it can be done. I would wait though since the Osmo got a price drop and aim for the X5 or X5R. larger sensor, better image quality, interchangeable lens mount. What I like the most about it though is that it works. Just turn it on and you are ready to go, no fiddling required. Its ease of use is really great.
If I may, I watched your short and while I know your on screen talent are probably great martial artists, they don't seem to be selling the choreography that well. The moves are too tight, their arms and legs need to open up more, swings need to be wider. Impacts are telegraphed and lack any visual impact, falls are okay, but I can see the actors bracing themselves for it. Everyone seems very stiff (I'm assuming from the cold weather). And its very repetitive. Two fighters square up, they fight, break, wash rinse repeat. And the camera work is also repetitive, there's no dynamic to it. It moves in a circle but the coverage is either obscured or just kinda meh. One of the things that the guys from Film Riot nailed was that each action sequence has its own pace, its own look and feel and its own dynamic. There's a purpose to the action and goal to be met. In yours, every fight is the same and I found myself not caring what happens in the end. Action and comedy work best when its short and snappy, which is why those two genres pair well together. Now you can string a series of short action scenes to make a longer sequence, but each smaller scene still has their own mise e scene as well as a story structure (beginning, middle and end).
What makes for bad CGI? What is the litmus test? And isn't going to see the films that have style over substance the OPPOSITE reason you won't be seeing the other films- "I am so sick of seeing movies dominated by over-blown VFX that have no connection to reality, that do nothing to develop the characters or the story of the film. Blech!". I want to understand your logic but you seem to be contradicting yourself.