Throughout my career, I have had movies pop up on which I was brought on as the DP, and I ended up getting a producer credit in addition to my camera work.
A lot of the behind the scenes work for cinematographers, and photographers, is economic calculation.
So, in the age-old discussion regarding film and digital image capture, and how much they cost, and which is cheaper, the answer is the same that most economists parrot -- it depends.
Oppenheimer probably would have cost less if it were shot digitally. It might not have made as much money if it were only presented in standard auditoriums. So -- multivariate analysis?
Really, costs mostly come down to how to people shoot their projects.
If you're a Clint Eastwood kinda director (who actually has switched to digital), film makes a lot of sense. He's a notoriously efficient filmmaker. In an industry that averages 14 hour days, he sometimes gets people out in four hours. If you're not shooting a ton of film, the cost of the film camera gear is low enough nowadays that the costs might be higher with digital.
If you're someone who wants to get a ton of takes with the camera rolling, yeah, eventually the film costs are gonna get pretty fucking high.
You always need a multivariate analysis. You also need to scout yourself. You also need to remember that art is always a factor, and that the numbers sometimes need to conform to the art.
Really, I've found ways to make it work both ways. I clearly have my preference.
Still, we're dealing with low-cost hardware with high-cost software vs. high-cost hardware with low-cost software.
When that's the case, the cost depends on the people.