The emoticon there is for what's to come.
First the really simple answer to your question: When it comes to IQ in the final image digital camera originals are going to have the edge over scanned film not so much in a straight head to head comparison but in what either process is able to achieve. It's not a huge edge and shooting film is still a excellent way to go.
I stopped shooting film but I still spend a lot of time working with it as my students still shoot film and it's my job to help them do that.
The IQ comparisons:
1. State-of-the-art digital cameras record more DR than film. This means that you have more tonal data to work with using modern digital cameras versus film. And that's really the kicker for me. If you're going to prioritize a list of the technical characteristics that we value in a photo then tonal response takes the top slot.
2. Recording of fine detail still falls to film if you shoot any film size above 35mm. Modern digital cameras now beat 35mm film when it comes to recording detail but medium and large format cameras are way beyond digital -- no contest there.
Everything else like color accuracy and color response really are so adjustable once the film is scanned that these are not issues.
Film has grain which will be apparent in a final image. Being old school originally I like grain and will sometimes add it to a digital image.
Here's two example photos that illustrate items 1. and 2. above.
That photo is a digital camera original. Captured in the image you see there is 10 stops of tonal data. Here's the JPEG that the camera created.
The camera blew the highlights and in a high contrast scene like this the shadows are fully black. In the photo above processed from the raw original you can see detail up under the rear tires and the highlights are not blown. You can't do that with film whether you scan it or not -- film won't record a usable 10 stops of data.
So big deal: take a different photo with film and don't expect it to do things it can't. Control the lighting when using film and this difference goes away. So in that sense there's an element of unfairness in the comparison. Digital IQ isn't necessarily better so much as digital provides more possibilities.
This is a 3000 ppi scan of a medium format film negative. At this screen size you don't really see the detail advantage that film offers.
Here's her left eye at 3000 ppi.
Digital really can't do that. Unless you're going to buy on of these:
XF Camera System and it's very easy to just up the ante with film even further. In 35mm however digital will win the fine detail contest. I still make large prints and I can print this photo on and Epson 9880 at 30x40 and the detail advantage of film will be quite obvious. An 80 mp Phase One camera system in not in my budget and even at 80 mp quite frankly medium format film is still better.
Trouble with this is it quickly gets esoteric. It doesn't much matter because very few of us are really taking photos that are going to be enlarged to the point where it shows. In today's world of average screen size images and 8x10 prints or smaller there's no issue here.
Joe