The image quality of the IQ180 may indeed be better than 8x10 scanned film, and better in more ways than just sharpness. However the test that was done is not valid at all in my opinion. Let's take just the sharpness issue. First- the color film used was not optimal. Having shot 8x10 color films for years (before giving up the impractical beast, at least for me), the film stock makes a big difference. Fuji Provia for example has finer grain and more sharpness than the Ektachrome. The new Portra 160 has less grain, and probably more sharpness.
As others have mentioned, shooting at f32 will show the effects of diffraction, on the screen, and perhaps at huge prints sizes. F16-22 was usually the sharpest for me (however where Depth.Of.Field. didn't matter at all, for some lenses the best sharpness was at f11). Of course if you want large D.O.F and camera movements won't cut it, then stopping down is necessary. For an 8x10 a lot of stopping down is sometimes necessary (f32 and smaller) and that is a big weak point of shooting 8x10.
8x10 can have a unique look due to the small D.O.F (well, at least compared to much smaller imaging sizes). When printed via analog means 8x10 can have a special ultra smooth look, no matter how close one looks at the print (contact print or moderate size, say 20x24). Not even lightjet or inkjet prints from the best scans have this look. There are advantages to printing digitally however I have yet to see that special look.
Film holders/film flatness and groundglass/focusing accuracy. Another big weak point of 8x10. However I was able to get excellent results using Toyo holders and a Tachihara camera (not to mention an Ebony brand model), and using a 7x loupe to focus. I was lucky that the particular cameras I had were fairly accurate.
The scanning that was done for the test: This is utterly puzzling - why use a lower-grade scanner, and to scan at such a low resolution, for this type of test? the testers might have gotten better results shooting 4x5" film and scanning at a higher res - more film flatness and greater D.O.F. The answer seems to be that since the film results weren't that sharp (as seen via a loupe) then there was no reason to scan it at higher res. Actually, there was not point to scan it at all then - due to the film and f-stop issues.
And that sums it up - what was the real point of this test? Shooting less than optimal film, non-optimal f-stop, and sub-optimal scanner and ridiculously low resolution, renders this test of not much use. Yes, IQ180 may very well be better. But this test does nothing to prove that point.