Most productions with any sort of budget shoot film; theatrical and television. The industry in general knows at this point that it simply looks better than digital. There may come a day when that is not the case, but for now, it is not. They use film to capture the scene, then digital to edit and manipulate it. The best of both worlds: the huge advantages of film upon capture, but with the non-destructive editing and lack of generation loss of digital.
The main disadvantage of shooting film these days is that it is *expensive* as all get out. The smaller productions can't afford the cost of processing the stuff, so they are usually the ones who fully embrace a 100% digital workflow. There are many exceptions, of course; large budget movies that have been shot partly or fully in digital.
I do not hold much hope for film. I definitely do not have any faith in Kodak to do anything other than act like a corporation. Individuals have souls and consciouses and can make decisions that are not self serving...but not groups. When cameras get to the point when they are close enough looking to film that most people can't tell the difference, film will be dropped almost overnight, just like it was when the press went digital. There will be one new camera that someone decides is the breaking point, then one large studio will jump ship. The others will follow, wanting to stay on par. Then it will be over. Film types will gradually be cut until there are just a few varieties...etc., etc. The same thing that has happened with still film. There is no hope for film in the end, as money is the only thing that talks...or screams, rather.
I feel it is important to look at final results rather than a technical concern such as medium. If there truly is a point when digital looks as good as film, and can do everything that I need it to do, I will embrace it. I feel that this will be forced upon me far before I can make this decision willingly, though, meaning that film will go away before digital has even matched it.
