Thanks Jeff,
in particular I like the "bottom line" methodology of comparing only through carefully made prints, eliminating all the haggling over pixel sizes and such in on-screen comparisons of direct digital output.
And although it is possible here, as with almost any single experiment, to raise quibbles (like the idea that a film scanner that gives far more pixels on the image than the digital sensors, and full colour uninterpolated ones at that, might be a significant limiting factor), the main conclusion is in scientific terms well established by the coherence of such such a large body of careful comparative observations. (The only "counter evidence" I have seen is rather irrelevant resolution comparions, involving magnifying so much that you have to squint to see through a dust storm of grain or noise.)
That is not to say that this conclusion is an unassailable certainty (science does not work that way), but that the onus is by now solidly on the digital sceptics to produce counter evidence, while digital users can probably just relax and confidently enjoy the new tools.
P. S. On rereading, my comments could be misinterpreted as an attack on quentin's, which was not my intent. The question of scanner quality is a legitimate one in the context of thorough and sceptical scientific evaluation. I suppose I meant that if we relax from the criminal law's "proof beyond reasonable doubt" to a civil trial's "proof on the balance of probabilites", these observations add persuasively to a body of evidence which, considered as a whole, seems easily enough to decide the issue.
