My first feature was shot on 35mm. Back in those days you could get a huge discount on raw 35mm stock by getting short ends and recans (we're talking a savings north of 80% over what Kodak charged), so it was actually CHEAPER to shoot on 35mm than 16 because it was tougher to get a good deal on 16mm short ends. Nowadays this advantage appears to be largely gone, there are no more reputable raw stock dealers and you have to take your chances on ebay: it's risky and good luck accumulating 100,000 feet of film for your low budget feature in a reasonable amount of time.
Also, there are fewer labs and from what I hear all the NY labs went under, so now I have to take my chances and ship film. That's scary, insurance will just cover filmstock and processing if it gets lost. And if you're abroad, good luck not getting your 500 asa film damaged by X-rays. To boot, it's hard getting a good price on processing now. Back when I was shooting my feature I got process and prep for $0.10/ft for 35mm. Not going to get that anymore.
Nowadays you can get some nice deals on cameras, but with film the camera is always going to be a big clunker. With digital I can pack a Nikon with me in a bookbag and film in places where I'd need a permit, with built in optical image stabilization so I can go totally handheld, and not be noticed. I remember getting on the subway with my Arri II C - that certainly got a lot of attention. I can use a $60 steadicam with my digital camera. With a 35mm or 16mm camera that's impossible (esp. since you have to get a video tap on it).
I also don't have to worry about reloading often with digital. When I was shooting 35mm I'd be reloading for every 2 minutes of filmed footage since most of my short ends were 200'. I had two magazines and no camera assistant, so I did all my own reloading. I also had to periodically check the gate. That was time wasted, which could have been used for moving the shoot along faster. Now with a 64 gig card I can slave away for a day if need be.
Then there was the fun stuff in post. Since I shot on an MOS camera, I post dubbed the whole film. From a creative standpoint I enjoyed that process, but I still had to record audio on set and sync it all up in post for the dubbing. That wasn't fun. Then I was told by the lab not to bother with keycodes on my film and then the negative cutter refused to conform my film. That wasn't fun either. But we stayed on video so it wasn't a problem in the end.
And finally, I guess Bellamy has never developed film. I used to develop still and motion picture film, and even ran a website devoted to the subject. If anybody reading this thinks they can start running an ECN-2 line in their house, boy do they have a surprise coming. You have to be an experienced chemist (processing chemistry requires regular maintenance), invest in a lot of expensive equipment that requires regular maintenance (the $100 Morse G-3 tank you see on ebay is going to give your film that uneven development look of WWII newsreels), and by the way - where are you going to dump all those toxic chemicals? In the drain? Processing movie film is not something you do at home if you want professional results. And it's also very time consuming, on top of everything else. So forget about it, unless you want to do some roughshod processing of B&W Super 8 where the beat up look is part of the aesthetic, in that case get the Morse G-3 or Lomo tank on ebay.
My next feature film will be all digital. Sure, I miss film in one way: you could screw up the exposure and you could salvage it (except with reversal film - that was a problem). And yes, your work was future proof, though up-rezzing technology will no doubt continue to improve. But I'm thrilled that I can make a feature film with a $400 DSLR using a camera that weighs 3 lbs and have it look like film in post. It's a dream come true. I don't have to run around and raise lots of money and risk disappointing people if the film never makes back its money. I just ran the numbers and today it'd be difficult to shoot a 16mm 90 minute feature at a 10:1 ratio for under $30K for stock, processing, and transfer. And the cost savings of shooting B&W aren't there anymore really, either. Ten years ago I could get 5222 for $0.44/ft new from Kodak, back when Vision color neg cost $0.64/ft new. Now it's $0.64/ft for 5222 versus Vision color negative at $0.76/ft.
And since I got my training on film I'm fine with doing few takes, it's become a habit. I don't do playbacks on the set 90% of the time. For those who don't have that habit let them sit in an editing room and log footage - they'll be cured fast :)