To clarify what I said before:

I don't think digital will EVER be alble to replicate the depth, richness, and warmth that comes from shooting on 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm film. They may try their damnedest, but it won't happen.

It's clear already that the resolution of digital has already outstripped the resolution of 35mm film, and soon, 70mm as well. What I'm worried about is that people will see this monstrous 28K image, look at 35mm with it's 6-10K image, and think "Oh, okay, digital is better than film now."

There is SO MUCH more to it than resolution.

You can't light a digitally-shot movie the same way you'd light the exact same shot for film.
Lenses behave differently on digital than on film.
Depth of field works differently on digital than on film.
The capturing of color information works differently on digital than on film.
Contrast ratios and latitude work differently on digital than on film (yeah, I know that's going back to lighting).

My point is, if you shoot the exact same shot, say, on anamorphic 70mm (like Ben-Hur) and then on this 28K camera system, you'll NEVER get the two to look similar.

The thing is, I'm not saying that the look of one is better than the look of another. I just highly prefer the look of film, and I can't understand, after 100 years of seeing movies shot ON FILM, that people are so ready to let that brilliant aesthetic die.