I watched the video - it seems to be every reason not to shoot with a DSLR!
DSLRs look great for headshots at F2 with an out of focus lamp behind.
Bascially how to evaluate 'quality' yes there are a lot of mumbo jumbo numbers. It IMO seems to come down to data rate - you will see a 1080HD camera like the Sony F35 seems to shoot a suitcase of data - im sure that is not a waste 880MBS or something http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-F35/
- what is the 1DX? 45mbs? - that is jpg compression 2 in stills speak?
Your camera shoots H264, 8bit
This is kind of the minimal,
Imagine you are allocating data around the frame you will see that complex subjects - trees waving in the wind - buildings - require a lot of data
Here the compressed formats really fall apart
Maybe a pro-res recorder would help for such scenes
Certainly a Black magic camera - the image is just a bunch of raw still DNG files - but the data rate is a double edged sword..
The BMC shoots 7GB per minute! which has its own serious issue set
As for shooting 'flat' this is IMO fools gold of the deepest nature when using a 'thin codec' (8bit camera)
You should look to cram the histo with data and concentrate on getting the colours in camera
As soon as you grade 8bit it collapses becuase there are no unseen intermediate tones to rely on.. it has to band/break up
Canon C300 - hmm - im not so sure
Bin the flat profiles? (free)
Consider a recorder? ($1000?)
Consider a new camera? ($theworldisyouroyster)
My feeling is the BMC and Scarlet offer a great image in a quirky package and the upcoming Sony F5 and C500 offer a great image in a more practical package
Im unconvinced by the F3,C100,C300andAF100,FS100 and FS700 - they are a step beyond DSLR but only a step - the codecs are too thin for more IMO