When I work for paying customers I have to see equipment as a business cost and justify it to the clients, hence my aversion to running up large production budgets but skimping on the cost of the most important part - the camera. The results are great, the clients are happy, but it isn't film, not when it's shown in the same theatre as the work of real, gifted DOPs shooting 35mm film. They appreciate what Digital Betacam does,they make it look great, but it isn't film. You can over expose, under expose,color correct and change the entire look in the lab. Even on my worst days I've taken 16mm Neg to a good telecine colorist and brought back results that amaze me.
Video is actually much harder to make look good.
Lenses are the key to the look of any well made production, and my argument here is not about lines of resoulution, but depth of field. Set at F2 the depth of field is really small for close subjects like a mid shot of an actor 12 feet away. This gives the shoot a particular feel if the depth of field is kept reasonably consistant to defocus backgrounds and concentrate attention on the talent. It also keeps highly skilled focus pullers in big demand, because keeping the picture sharp without the audience realising that focus is moving is one of the great secrets of the film look. When you move to super 16mm the lens focal lengths change, and the same shot might be acheived on a 20 or 25 mm lens, which of course has a bigger depth of field, making the background sharp, and the focus pullers job easier.