There is one big fallacy in the article. The pictures taken with film are SCANNED and then processed as digital rather than processed in a wet darkroom as they were meant to be processed.
True the scanner is a top of the line scanner, but is it capable of extracting all the information from the film? I doubt it.
The same holds true for the output devices, both monitor and printer. Are they capable of reproducing all the information stored in the large scan files?
The question about this comparison is what limits are being measured. Is the limitation that of the film/camera combination or is it the limits of the scanner/printer/monitor?
If you want a true comparison of film versus digital, I would suggest processing the film as it was intended in a wet darkroom using a quality enlarger, lens, and material (with an experienced operator) and compare the prints to the prints produced by the digital darkroom.
For the professional photographer selling 5x7 or 8x10 prints and portraits, the new digital equipment may, indeed, be the equal to film and have the advantage of being more economical.