Daniel...?????????? Where have you heard, read, or seen that? The one concrete thing you can say about film over DV is presently it has a much greater latitude then DV. All the other variables in picture quality vary from format to format. For example, I would take HDCAM over 16mm any day (it still does not compete well with 35mm...yet).(posted 7777 days ago)I won't even comment on 8mm, but if you broadcast on anything less then a theatre screen, well lit DV can be very much on par with film (sometimes exceeding) in picture quality* and visible resolution (*see above about latitude). If you plan to broadcast theatrically, then 16mm shot with quality lens (ie-zeiss) is better then the best minidv.
If you are comparing a theatrical screening of 16mm versus digital projection, again certain variables must be taken into account. Film color deteriorates over time and use, digital does not. After about 100 runs of a 16mm film, it starts looking like crap. You can process another print but this brings up the biggest difference in considering film or DV-price and time.
To answer Al's question, I would say no, 16mm is still overall better quality picture, BUT... 1. the difference is barely noticeable in most distribution methods.
2. 16mm's "better picture quality" is not worth the added expense (in my opinion).
3. 50mbps DV (digibeta, dvcpro50) is better then 16mm (again except latitude, which by the way can be compensated for with proper lighting)
4. It will not be long before quality HD is down to prosumer prices (4-5 years) and 16mm (not to mention 8mm) will be yesterday's news.
I believe DV will someday rival 35mm in all categories, but film will never die. Just as BnW is still used today to express the filmmaker's message, "true film look" (not simulated) will be desired by some future filmmakers and audiences (Spielberg being an excellent example).