Nikon simply doesn't have video experts helping them out in the design stage, and it shows. Moreover, most of Nikon's "example" movies to date have been produced by still photographers, not motion picture or video experts, thus I doubt that the kinds of feedback they need to hear is getting back to them. When you contrast what Nikon's done with the D3s versus what Canon has done with the 5DII (and now 7D and 1DIV), the differences are night and day. Let's hope that Nikon is watching Canon's moves closely and at least mimics them (1080 support, multiple frame rate support that's geared to actual broadcast specs, better audio support, higher audio bandwidths, better compression, the list goes on and on). But my suspicion is that Nikon isn't trying to get ahead of the curve here. Instead of going directly to the movie industry and finding out what's really necessary to get ahead (2k and 4k raw, balanced inputs, true shutter control, and much more) they're just looking at what competitors are doing and getting noted for. Personally, I'm still at the same point I was over a year ago: when I want large sensor video, I use my GH1: it simply has more of the video side right than the Nikon DSLRs do.
Overall, the video side of the D3s still seems to be what we had in the D90. Some still camera engineer discovered that he could teach a few video tricks to his toy, so did. For a pro camera like the D3s, this seems like a very out-of-place feature. Toy video on an otherwise top-of-the-line still camera is just a wierd combination. It's like someone grafted a 2x4' box on the back of a Prius and marketed the combination as "car and pickup." More like "car and gimmick."
So we have this marvelous contradiction: the D3s handles better than any other still camera I've used. But it handles worse than lesser video cameras I've used. Sorry, Nikon, that was a swing and a miss as far as I'm concerned.