Distribution is one big issue, and sending reals of film allows tighter control, and provides more venues. This is why even projects that originate on video can get transferred to film later. In fact, there are two more newer and faster telecine machines now on the market that do video to film transfers.
Editing is another issue. I am reminded of this because I got talked into doing a rough edit as a favor, and it is quite a bit of work to edit video. The other recent and somewhat related problem is dailies on larger productions, since the time factor is more involved. The labor expensive of making features is often substantially higher than the material expense, and new technologies really only change material expense.
There will be more of these devices, and the expenses will continue to drop. The lenses will still be expensive, and on many projects the cameras will continue to be rented or leased. Motion imaging is somewhat going the way of music, either high end, or low end. The high can be film, and slick production, while the low end can be YouTube. There will continue to be more video, yet there is enough of a motion imaging film market for Kodak and Fujifilm to develop new products.
Projection expense is another issue, with many theatres wanting lower costs for digital projection. The margins just are not good enough for many of them, so they stick with the film projection gear they have now. There is also a variable of a different set-up and operation; complaints of colour issues being operator dependent led some to do film final pieces, even on projects that started on video. Obviously many more issues beyond technology, and too early to tell what and when each gets resolved.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography