thank you for your reply and your critizism - as I told I am just a (still analog) hobby photographer and maybe I simply cannot believe the incredible quality of these CCDs. And meanwhile I have noticed that I have posted this question on the wrong part of the forum... So, please apologize if my suggestions should be outdated and naive.
But I have still some questions:
1. I think a parallel comparison using the SAME lens is indispensable, although large format maybe superior.
2. My suggestion was - and perhaps I didnt explain it correctly - to compare a CCD area of exactly 5,5 x 7 mm2 (825x1050 pixel, about 800,000 pixel) with 5,5 x 7 mm2 film, enlarged by a linear factor of 20, resulting in a picture of 11x14 cm. Here, the slight advantage of the larger field of film (42mmx56mm) as compared to CCD (36,8mmx49,1mm) would be neglected. But then we directly compare the same area of CCD with film. I meant 11x14 cm2 for the 20-fold enlargement of the detail, representing a final size of 84 x 112 cm2 of the total print (film) or 74 x 98 cm2 of the P45 picture.
3. Maybe that in certain combinations the use of a drum-scan is superior, but in all tests using drum-scans it formally cannot be excluded that the scanner is limiting the result. At least with b/w film and good optics (as the Mamiya 7 camera has, I dont know the 645) it should be possible to resolve more than 80-100 lp/mm (numbers which often are not reached by large-format lenses since they are calculated for a wider field) under best analog printing conditions. I just wonder whether 150 pixels/mm can do the same job.
4. Right, you can see it without scanning, but I would like to see the result here on the LL page....