Old movies were shot with slow emulsion film and needed copious amounts of lightning.
I remember reading that first Wizard of Oz was shot on early Technicolor and needed so much light that actor make-up was melting.
With DSLR, chips got so efficient you don't need Kilowatts of light, couple of bounce shileds can go long way.
Regarding HDMI/raw/4:2:2/10-bit color:
It's complicated. Don't get too hang up on details. Tech is good. Really good. I feel I have double the tech my dad ever had, but not quite as much talent
HDMI is uncompressed. So you can kinda call it RAW.
But it's only half a story. Some cameras suffer from artifacts/moire, so even uncompressed HDMI won't save the day. It will faithfuly reproduce the shortfalls of the chip. In this regards, Panasonic is IMHO the best.
4:2:2 is one of ways to do chroma-subsampling. Without going to details, let's just say that cameras record B/W portion of picture in much more detail than they do for colours. This is a "poor mans compression" and stems from the beginning of TV. 4:4:4 is best, then 4:2:2, then 4:2:0. In reality, you won't see the difference unless you do green-screen key-pulling.
More info here:
Chroma subsampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All DSLR's I know about use 4:2:0 and 8-bit colour.
8-bit: 256 shades of every primary colour (RGB).
10-bit: 1024 ......
This matters more as 10-bit will "survive" post a lot better.
But all this is mostly academic. For 1000 bucks, you get better gear than many serious film makers had 30 years ago.
Shoot a lot and experiment ... there is no film roll that needs to be developed