Someone asked why I gave up using 35mm for that project next year. I've been looking closely at current filmstocks and it's Kodak's fault: they made the grain too fine in 35mm. It almost looks like digital. It's so strange that to compete with digital they just decided to make film that looks like it, but at a much higher cost.
Cool video! Unfortunately the videomaker isn't a filmmaker so he doesn't understand one of the most basic rules about "renting" equipment... umm, nobody charges you a "day" rate. Equipment is rented for a 3 day week, which means all of those cameras are MUCH closer to the cost of a film camera.
Another factoid is that 6:1 ratio is SUPER tight. I have yet to make a single budget under 8:1 and almost all of my "low" budgets start at 10:1. This of course raises the cost substantially.
Now the three big things missing are first the transfer... which for theatrical SHOULD be a scan, which is more money than a telecine. Second, the color grading on a digital project takes WAY more time than on film, costing more money. Third, when you're done with the film, you can always scan it later at a higher resolution, but with digital you can't.
In the end, today in 2017 to shoot on S16 (with a 4k scan) vs Red Dragon (with a 4k finish) for instance... Digital "CAN" be cheaper, because a talented artist can do most of the work at home and "borrow" a camera for peanuts, thanks to places like Share Grid.
So where I do love film and I do promote as my business, what I personally use to promote it are things like; longevity, resolution agnostic, a look that draws people's attention which intern gives your project more attention, making something "different" then the other guys and of course it's that layer between reality and the audience that digital doesn't have.
Ohh and I vastly prefer 35mm because of the shallow depth of field on wider angle shots.