Actually, I have seen film under a microscope, not just the eyepiece, and there is no useful image. Sorry.
Thank you for taking the time to do the math, but you have one little problem--the images that were posted do not support your hypothesis. It is hard to argue with results. Could the film have gotten a higher result, yes at wider apertures. But in this test, and it is valid, the DoF was to be set at similar levels.
I think you might be a little confused by the results. These are at 100%. In no way is that a realistic viewing distance. Your perception of the actual image would be very different. While the different processes would add different qualities, both images will appear very detailed.
As a long time proponent of film photography, I really cannot agree with your inflated resolving powers for film nor your equations for calculating them. I don't know who Roger Clark is, but his site does say that the outcomes of this test are quite expected. He seems to think digital cameras resolve better than film. Which also seems to suggest that the math you got from him is also wrong. Perhaps it is time for him to update his website.