The reason I compared with Velvia was essentially that it was the film I used for something like 15 years before going to digital. I used also Provia but decided that I preferred Velvia. Anyway 67 and Velvia was what I was doing for a long time, and I did scan several hundred 67 slides.
The main reason for looking into this was threefold:
1) When scanning slides I felt that going beyond 1600 PPI started to show diminishing returns, I wanted to find out what quailty I could extract from a 67 slide.
2) I essentially hoped that I would find advantages with my Pentax 67 and 5 lenses, so I would use them more
3) Finding out how digital fared against Velvia
I have used around a dozen different slide films before arriving at Velvia, mostly because Kodak's handling of Kodachrome was not acceptable to me, and I always had a strong dislike for Ektachrome.
The reason I mentioned my test is that you can buy a very good camera today costing around 2000-3000 € and take pictures with zero cost. For the tests I made I exposed 3-4 rolls of film and had to wait 1-2 weeks for development. Cost for a film including development is perhaps 15 € (including postage). I needed to check focusing and so on. With digital I just made a single exposure.
With film you still need to scan it. I use an advanced CCD scanner from Minolta (no longer made) and it set me back 3000€ when I bought, I also have a projector at a similar price (made by Götschman). So everything about film is expensive. With Digital I essentially made a single exposure, checked the LCD and that's it.
So I feel that saying that MF film is an economical alternative is in my view an incorrect statement.
I have a plan to redo the test with negative film, the film has been in the fridge a long time, but I'm to lazy to get around to doing it.
Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer made a shootout with Digital backs and film 2006, and their findings were pretty consistent with mine, but they also used Velvia.
I don't think sharpness is a bourgeois concept, by the way. Neither bourgeois nor concept. For the stuff I'm doing it is essential. Doing landscape mostly, that may be a bourgeois concept!
In my opinion, on look alone, films beats digital. I saw your test when you did it and thought it was challenged, in many ways. Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made. It has what, maybe 5 stops of range? And those Colecovision colors. Awful. I think you are fair and not intentionaly biased, but it was obvious to me that your set up for the film, inluding scanning and the type of film chosen, the camera chosen, and your criteria for excellence dictated that the digital would come out on top. What this means is that digital is right for you.
For pixel peeping, convenience and sharpness, digital takes it. But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
That being said, I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices.