The comparison was intended to find out if IQ180 could replace 8x10". With the test methodology of the authors the result was a resounding yes. It may be argued that the authors should been more competent using the 8x10", and I certainly would scan film at higher resolution. The results may also simply indicate that achieving perfection with 8x10" is not easy.
Having spent a lot of time shooting 8x10 commercially and recently upgrading to an IQ 180, I agree that the basic premise of whether or not an IQ 180 could "replace" and 8x10 has been pretty much proven giving a maximum upward size of a print. An IQ 180 has a capture of 10328 x 7760 which equates to a digital print of 43x32.3 at 240PPI. So we're talking a nominal 30" x 40" print.
If you scan an 8x10 (nominally 9.5 x 7.5 unless you compose right to the rebate of the film) at 1600PPI (note I'm not saying that's the best you can get, I'm saying it's a reasonable file size for an 8x10 scan) you'll end up with an image of 15200 x 12000 pixels or about 43x34 at about 350PPI (353.488 to be exact).
In the analog world, that's a big print...heck, how many people have actually used an 8x10 enlarger (or even seen one)? I have and it was a real pain in the arse to make even a 16x20 enlarged print.
So, in terms of a digital print from an IQ 180 and an 8x10 scan assuming about 30x40 inch print, would the IQ 180 at about 240PPI look better than the 8x10 scanned at about 350PPI?
Hum...I don't know...but I'm willing to bet it would be close (and I'm leaning toward the IQ 180 shot on a tech camera with digital lenses). Forget about the reduced DOF on the 8x10 shot...forget about having to have a really good drum scanner to digitize the film...forget about the spotting and cleanup of the scan (which I used to REALLY hate). And of course, forget about dragging an 8x10 with tripod, lenses and film holders around and I think it's a no brainer. Assuming you have the bucks, the IQ 180 is a real competitive answer to 8x10. If you don't have the bucks...an 8x10 film camera is an economical alternative that will, as long as somebody makes 8x10 film and processes it and you have somebody who can scan it, provide really good image quality potential. So one is really, really expensive and the other is cheap (by comparison but weights a lot more :~)
I'll be honest and say that the scans of the 8x10 film don't look great to me...I have had enough 8x10 film scanned to view those scans as being less than optimal and I'm also wondering what the film looked like on the light table through an 8X loupe...
The other thing I will say is that I've had excellent results upsampling digital captures easily to 2x the original capture size. The same can't be said for film though...the grain makes upsampling less good than digital...so the real question is, what size prints do you want? Over 30x40 inches? Well then maybe we have a question here...under 30x40 inch prints? It would be hard to say 8x10 would be a winner considering all the factors aside from price.
But hey, you guys wanna keep yammering, you all go right ahead....personally, I would like to thank the authors for making the effort and at least contributing...you stick your face up in a crowd, you're likely to catch a lot of flak...