Lux Shots

That's an Executive Producer.

If you have the V-Log upgrade, it may be a good idea to skip it. Shoot in Cine-D and it will be less noisy. Use an f/1.7 or faster lens if you have it. There are really cheap Canon FD-Mount 50mm f/1.4 lenses ($50 USD on eBay). 
Also, I second using the Aputure AL-F7 ($100 USD) as it's bi-color and gives off a ton of light. I also recommend the Aputure Space Light modifier. Although it is a bowens mount modifier, you can just drop the AL-F7 in the opening an secure it with some tape for an amazing lightweight, portable and cheap soft light.

If you have the V-Log upgrade, it may be a good idea to skip it. Shoot in Cine-D and it will be less noisy. Use an f/1.7 or faster lens if you have it. There are really cheap Canon FD-Mount 50mm f/1.4 lenses ($50 USD on eBay). 
Also, I second using the Aputure AL-F7 ($100 USD) as it's bi-color and gives off a ton of light. I also recommend the Aputure Space Light modifier. Although it is a bowens mount modifier, you can just drop the AL-F7 in the opening an secure it with some tape for an amazing lightweight, portable and cheap soft light.

Yeah,...for me the Lumix S1H, a 10bit camera with great internal CODECs, no overheating and no recording limits and almost 6k raw? For $4,000,....is the most exciting camera I have seen in years. They just need to fix that one glaring problem with their color science and nasty blue channel clipping problem.
I already have an S1 and now the S1H is on my radar as a replacement.

5.9K 30fps ProRes RAW not bad, not bad at all. 

Looks Panasonic is going to beat Nikon to the punch. And at 6k raw too.
This is pretty incredible for a $4,000 FULL FRAME camera: https://www.atomos.com/press-releases/atomos-panasonic-lumixSH1-6K35mmFFR

I dont understand this blue clipping problem at all. On the S1 and S1H, while in VLog, the green and red channel have the very mild, saturation they are supposed to have. Those two have a perfectly normal response. However, blue is completely different than red and green, it just floods in with this crazy saturation that is 10 times more than red and green have. I dont get it...blue, why does THAT color respond soooo much more differently then red and green?
I did some more blue light tests last night:
S1 - Vlog = Blue 100% destroyed
S1 - HLG = Blue 100% destroyed
GH5 - VLog-l = Blue = Excellent!
GH5- HLG = Blue = Excellent!
Sony Z150 - HLG = Blue is very bad but not completely destroyed
Sony NX80 - SLOG-2 = Blue is somewhat "OK" but responds weird.
Sony NX80 - HLG = Blue is excellent!
Sony RX10-III - SLOG-2 = Blue is 100% destroyed.
Sony RX100 VII SLOG-2 (uses new Sony "Venice" color science) = Blue is excellent!!
Sony RX100 VII HLG (uses new Sony "Venice" color science) = Blue is excellent!!
All these cameras got the EXACT same blue light scene test. I dont know what to think but the GH5 is great and Sony's new color science seems to beat the problem too.
This really blows my mind.
CT

Looks like Sony let Panasonic be the king on video mirrorless camera, they have their own niche which is superior AF and not competing on video spec.

I hadn't been paying attention this but that 'Kepler 138' film is very impressive.

It's funny. Zillions of people are waiting and waiting for the A7S-III. Its like Charlie Brown in his field waiting for the Great Pumpkin!
The A7S-III is HERE and it's right under everybody'nose!
It has:
Full frame sensor (Very likely Sony Exmor)
6k full pixel readout to 4k scaling
14+ stops of dynamic range
10bit 4:2:2 4k with clean HDMI out
4k 30p 4:2:2 full frame no time limit internal recording.
4k 60p in "Hollywood" Cine super35 frame size.
Full size HDMI with 4k raw on the way.
Waveform scopes
Huge battery
Varicam color science....so delicious!!!
NO OVERHEATING!
Boom!.....that's 99% of what we wanted in the A7S-III....yet nobody is paying any attention to the S1 yet. (Only some people)  The S1 should be the industry talk of the town but too many people seem to be unaware of it still.
Sony is going to target the S1, not the S1H. I dont know if they can match the S1 using their tiny A7 bodies but lets see how far they go. 
S1H?....haha...Sony wont touch it! With 6k raw, Its going to be WAY over spec'd for Sony to even attempt to try. They dont have the bawls and XDCAM + Sony internal politics will never allow Alpha the chance.
 

Did you just say fam? ? ?
 
eta: Just seen your location, which makes it less likely you meant to say fam.  Pity.

I agree with Andrew on this. VLog on the S1 is friggin' spectacular. It destroys the A7S, A7S-II, GH5, GH5-S and beats the FS7 with no trouble. Showdows are clean in VLog, even with noise reduction turned down to zero, there is so little noise even at 2000 ISO...even in pitch black night!  (Thank you Panny for giving us actual noise reduction control!!!...I doubt Sony will ever allow that)
My A7S-II used to be my "go to" low light camera but this S1 destroys it. The A7S-II's 8bit readout was always "splotchy" as Hell in the shadows and would clip the blue channel WAY to easily in SLog-3. The S1? No way,...its shadows are smooth as silk. Just super clean and highly  detailed in VLog. V-Gamut protects each RGB channel beautifully too!
Tell me: WHO'S SENSOR IS IN THIS THING???
CT
P.s......4k raw over HDMI is coming. I have a good source on this.

Bullshit

Just like several users on this site posting at the same time get the correct response, you can encode the TOF transmission to the unique serial number of the camera.

This might be the cleanest camera I have ever seen. I would love to see a test with some vintage lenses(and maybe some diffusion) and some film grain thrown on it. 

I just quoted on a job. Required 3 trips to location, 3 lots of drone work and shooting on a roof and a little interview.
I quoted $2200 Aud (about 1500 usd) for a 2-3 min finished vid or $275 per hour  ($195usd) for the raw footage, only.  Got message back that he didn't have a lot of money to spend on the vid, and ultimately that i was too expensive, and I just wonder what folk expect when they phone about that sort of job. $500? I am seeing this more and more. Time to give up on video and become a plumber.
 
 

Gotcha - so just the firmware update announced 2-months ago and a camcorder from a month ago. Bummer. 

If you are not shooting LOG or HLG or don't want to grade there is little point in 10bit and 8bit is plenty 
My own tests of 150mbps vs 400mbps show the only advantage ( I only shoot LOG or HLG) is during the grading where the 400mbps codec is easier on the hardware. Visually I can't tell the difference and also can't 'break' the footage when applying even hefty tonal changes in terms of revealing artefacts. One reason you may want an ext recorder is that of you are recording a lot of footage it may be cheaper than V60/90 cards. 
I can see 10bit vs 8bit differences when I grade as its visible in the scopes.
You have not understood the bit depth data that DXO state - more research needed
 

It's good 'nuff for me.  
Serious question: are people complaining about this tech actually trying to make anything "for reals" with it?
If this is strictly a technical discussion, I'll disappear --but I'm operating under the assumption that some of us are actual creatives. 
Yeah, I'm feeling salty, but I do find it amusing that many shooters prone to making videos of municipal park leaves, or people walking through tourist destinations, care so much about the the barely discernible nuances and intricacies of codecs.
I don't know, maybe I shouldn't be bothered by it.  If people want to grab that tiger by the tail, go for it.  Who am I to say?

Not a technical comparison, but these guys saved me the time to do my own testing months ago. Haven't looked back since ?
 

Yes that's true (The HDMI out on my Sony A7s and A7r2  is very robust ) but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't need a 10 bit screen to benefit from a 10bit codec. I have argued many times previously that 10bit is not a cure-all. The advantage in video of 10bit is that in a YCBCR codec most of the data is stored in the Luma channel so higher rates of compression can be applied without running into some of the more obvious tonal artefacts. This I assume is why the 'theoreticaly inferior' 150mbps 10 bit codec can comfortably be used to shoot V-LOG, be subject to lots of tonal correction and still come out looking very good where as most internal 8 bit codecs fall apart.
At the end of the day most users are not choosing their  codecs after doing theoretical data analysis exercises as it's not hard to see the artefacts of a poor codec once you start grading esp if you shoot LOG profiles.
 

I think you misunderstand me. We all know from experience that the quality of interframe compression varies based on the amount of motion in the frame. You even showed that as an example with the water fountain. I think it is faulty logic to assume that you can come up with a generic file size for an I frame, out of a long GOP file. I'll try to explain myself more clearly:
 
"With an average video bit-rate of 94 Mbps each GOP has 45.3 Mbps"
So far so good. We have 94 Mbits to describe a second of footage.
"which means an I Frame has around 13.1 Mbits or 1.57 MB per frame"
Ok, that's true. I can see from your chart that the I frame is 1648326 bytes, so that I-frame is indeed ~1.6 MB.
"and an equivalent All-Intra bit-rate of approximately 328 Mbps."
This is where I disagree. You are apparently multiplying the 13.1 Mb/frame by 25 frames/sec to get the "equivalent" data rate of 327.5 Mbps. You are assuming that the amount of data in a B frame (247334 bytes for example) is the SAME amount of data needed to retain the fidelity of that frame that is required by the I frame in total. That is, you assume that:
1648326 absolute bytes = 247334 delta bytes
Where "equivalence" means that they will retain the same amount of information relative to the original, real world scene that is being encoded.
And we know, based on your example of the water fountain, that interframe compression quality depends heavily on what is being shot. Therefore, the idea of "equivalent" data rates being used as a measure of actual information retention is faulty, unless you specify what type of data is encoded.
 
I actually think you are right about Prores retaining more information, but like I said you don't have evidence for it. And beyond that, the GH5 could have such poor image processing that uncompressed HDMI actually has no benefit over the internal recording either so even if Prores is theoretically better, concluding that people need an external recorder to get 10 bit quality does not seem justified.

You don't need a 10bit screen to see the benefits of using a 10bit codec - the lack of banding, posterization and macro blocking artefacts after applying tonal adjustments especially with LOG footage are it's big advantages. 

Thank you for the clarification. I am fairly certain now that I've been following your argument correctly. I do understand interframe compression, by the way.
However, you can't simply compare bitrates, even adjusted for motion artifacts. There are different algorithms being used. You need to show, with image analysis or an analysis of the algorithm itself, that your method of comparison is valid.
 
Again, for your conclusion, you have not shown that Prores is better. You are still just comparing the size of I frames from codecs that use different algorithms. That's why I suggest doing an actual analysis on real images.
Chroma subsampling is for static images, and jpegs do use chroma subsampling. "[Chroma subsampling] is used in many video encoding schemes – both analog and digital – and also in JPEG encoding." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling)