s.matson

This is a good intro to the structure of proxies and caches in Resolve - it's from v12 but the overall structure is likely to be similar if not exactly the same in 15.
There's also a google doc of the diagram: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1pbBbA4I2q3RZYrOSELPXgfdzp0X6B9OngVimTeSmbuo/edit
Resolve is a complicated beast.
I had to watch a few tutorials on manual Online / Offline editing workflows to find one that worked, especially considering my proxy files were slightly different filenames (extensions were different than proxies) but this was one of the ones I watched and might give an idea about the logic involved.
 

There are way too many armchair professionals around here so @jase, I think it will be difficult for you to get an honest opinion of this camera based on YOUR criteria for wanting one.
I shared your interest in this camera about a year ago and scoured Vimeo and YouTube for video samples and honestly, I found some pretty good stuff shot with it, so for the price... go for it.
You’ve proven time and time again that you are more than capable enough to produce quality work with whatever camera you have in your hands.
If you don’t like it, you can easily sell it and get your money back, or very close to it... so where’s the harm? Or maybe you’ll like the lens so much that you’ll want to upgrade to the a7iii. I see no harm in a good old fashioned test. 

No question, I’d go with the a6500 over the a6300. But also be prepared to have a hard time seeing the LCD screen in daylight if using sLog and be prepared to get an on overheating warning. I can’t say much about the AF because I used old manual focus lenses with it. The 4K is insanely detailed and sharp, especially when downscaled to 1080p. And for me, the color was kinda wonky, but I’m sure a better colorist would do fine with it.
With that being said, if you research online, there’s a reason why the lion share of wedding videographers still use Canon cameras.
I honestly don’t believe in recommending cameras any more. I’ll discuss my experiences with them based on my limited skill set, but these choices are so personal to individual needs, one really has to decide what specific spec or specs get them hot and bothered and go from there.
Whatever your choice, good luck!

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

Actually for gimbal the software and tuning is extremely important if not more than the hardware.

Essentially at the center of the gimbal you have an IMU (motion sensors) with gyroscope an accelerometer to feel the motion and send counter information to the motors. But then, you need to tune the filtering and the PIDs which is critical. Vibration filtering is only one of the parameters and you must select a cut off value so this is subjective based on the use. Handheld use won't have the same profile as drone use, and even drones have a lot of variation based on the vibration frequency induced by the propellers and the resonance of the frame which in turns depends of the frame rigidity and rpm of the motors. The loop speed is important also (refresh frequency/rate of the sensors).
Having oversized motor to handle the load despite non-optimum balancing is also necessary (sometime the lack of balance is simply due to the CG shift when the camera moves up and down). So it's hard to give clear metrics. In my personal experience, the hardware is not the limiting factor nowadays. You can find plenty of powerful IMUs and processing unit on ebay for a few dollars. The difference between a bad gimbal and a good one is the hardware integration and PID tuning.

@kye "I don't want to be that person, I just want that person to tell me the answers so that I can buy the right device when I'm in the market for one!  This thread is kind of an open letter to that person - please go ahead!!"
Unfortunately there is not simple answer, a DxO of gimbal would show the resolution, loop speed, motor force, etc. of the gimbals but without actual real life testing, such metrics wouldn't be very useful because integration and tuning is key. For instance Sony camera have "shitty" skintones but when Nikon implement Sony sensor the colors are nicer our of the box.

Data for digital cameras come from CIPA 2017
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201712_e.pdf
Actually they show the entire digital camera market at 800 billion yen or about US$8bn (but that is at shipping values which would be lower than retail.)
Mirrorless is 220 billion yen or US$2bn. Yes its growing but I do think it is really about splitting up the digital camera pie which is why Canon/Nikon is interested in mirrorless. Arguably Canon/Nikon/ Panasonic/Sony/Ollympus/Fuji are just fighting over a US$2bn market.
Total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold in 2017 = 11m (CIPA). Total number of smartphones sold in 2017 1,536m = a multiple of 140x!!
https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3859963
The cold reality is that Samsung is not in the digital camera market because they are in the smartphone market - and the cold reality is that Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus are in the digital camera market because they are not in the smartphone market.

The LX100 accepts the Cinelike commands and changes it's colour profile to something unusual.
I'll look at it again at some point as it would be a very cool thing to have on there I think. 

Is it working for your LX100?