Film look is only possible when given enough dynamic range. Most DSLRs have a poor DR, so we try to emulate the film look by shooting wide open, shooting anamorphic, etc..
I await the day DSLRs will have the DR of the RED Epic or the Alexa.

I get what you are saying Vitaliy, it's the content of the film, not necessarily how the film looks. I couldn't agree more with you, but if the content is already available, why not shoot it as beautifully as possible? Push the tools at your disposal to their limits? Some of the most beautiful art I've seen was created with some of the most basic of tools. However, it was the way in which they were used that aided in the creation of a particular piece. The tools were reinvented simply by the way in which they were used. I mean that's why you are hacking cameras right? You want to push them to their limits, make them do things they were not originally intended to do. This is what adds to the overall production value. With that, I thank you very much for your work on GH13 and the potential GH17 :-)

Does anyone have any suggestions on best Film Mode settings?

>I shoot as flat as possible (to maximize DR),

I think that he want to know your exact settings to obtain so highly desirable "as flat as possible" :-)

Not sure to what extent things are applicable from the GH2 to GH1(i've never used GH1 but i think they are) but from GH2 experience, if you want a "flat image" you generally want -2 contrast, - sharpness, -2 NR 0 saturation. Generally, stay away from -2 saturation cause you'll always end up boosting it in post. I think the only 2 settings I would never change from -2 are NR and sharpness. Contrast you have to make conscious decision depending on subject, mood, lighting, lens etc. For instance it's probably good idea to leave -2 with the 20mm 1.7. with an old FD lens, you might want to leave it at 0. If you know you're going to end up boosting the contrast a lot like 90% of people do, don't start at -2 because if the image was too flat, you will add noise as you boost the contrast curve. Apart from all this, if you're really interested in obtaining very flat images, it should mean you're interested in actually working in post(MB looks presets/mojo etc doesn't count) so unless someone knowledgeable is grading for you, I think it might be a good idea to read a book on Color correction so you get better understanding on how certain things work. Also, just my advice, if you are serious about emulating certain desirable qualities of film, never google/youtube/vimeo search for "film look" and avoid camera tests etc(trust me I went through that stage some years ago). It is the worst thing you can do to yourself and most commonly, it is so far away from being filmic it's funny. Videos of crushed blacks/almost monochrome black/green look, overly saturated colors, slider moves for every shots, bleach bypasses, MB looks and mojo and from other spectrum extremely flat picture that looks almost completely grey, and with huge flares all over the place< all these are usually very far from being filmic so be ware. It's more constructive to look at trailers.

@stefanos great tips. thanks.

@stefanos +1 from me too.

The so-called "film look" is not a function of the sensor or camera controls as Producer believes, but is instead a function of the post processing done. All digital cameras will shoot like digital cameras because they have electronic sensors and any individual style is the result of the ASICs doing in-camera processing. Similar processing can be done on your own computer. It's ridiculous IMHO to ask Vitaliy to "hack" for a film look when he should just learn how to post-process his own video. He might as well as for a hack to edit the video for him while he's at it.

Hi - to my mind those different looks in the shots of London look "cheesy". If you were going to do a whole feature film like that, it would just look annoying, but then the GH2 or any other DSLR is unlikely to be the weapon of choice for shooting a genuine theatrical release, surely. The other issue with in-camera looks is that if a client decides on a different look for a particular shot, you're stuffed. Surely it's much better to do it in post, unless there's something you're saying which I don't understand?

i definitely second that. a more flat picture style setting would be great.

Producer, I really don't understand what you're saying. Your first paragraph is just agreeing with what we've been saying! As far as I can tell...

If you think that still image is "film-like," you've never used film.

To MrAnthony and all other people thinking like him: this is not film-like, this is exactly what the most expensive cams present as a picture. Every movie production starts from this look which is the most suitable for any further final process. Don't tell me you can't recognize the picture of any Hollywood production and any soup novella.
Of course, our Panasonic cameras will never achieve such a look, but what can be done is just to go closer to it. And please, don't mention the theory about story, lighting, etc. - those things are extremely important and they are part of every production without any doubts, but the picture is what defines the magic of the cinema look.
If you deny the raw frame taken with RED ONE, then what to discuss more?!?
Ok, another two RED ONE frames, this time processed from raw, it speaks by itself: