I don't consider Genuine Fractals a substitute for real image resolution. I've used it and all it does is allow you to scale an image without showing visible pixellation. It actually degrades image quality from the original, but if you need to make an oversize print that you view from waaaay back, it works just fine.
It all depends on what your presentation is and how closely the print will be scrutinized. I don't consider 35mm adequate for a finely detailed 16x20 print. If you've seen stunning large prints made with medium and large format you know what I mean. On the other hand, you can make a bus-sized enlargement of a 3.3 megapixel image with fractal enlargement and it will look okay... as long as you're standing across the street and the bus is moving.
The advantages of digital prints including Lightjet on Crystal Archive are certainly open to those of us who still primarily shoot film. At 4000 ppi for my new desktop scanner I've got a boatload more resolution to work with than the D1X provides with an investment of only $1000. My files will scale up with Genuine Fractals too and you can get closer to the bus without seeing a blur.
The Outback Digital article loses credibility when it puts up 500 x 328 pixel bitmaps to "show" how nice 16 x 20 inch prints look. This is just plain silly. There really isn't any way to demonstrate the quality of these prints on the web short of drum scanning a significant chunk of it and putting up megabytes for download.
All that said, I look forward to my first digital SLR when the price is right. It would fit nicely in a niche with my 35mm bodies. A few years down the road, I expect that I'll get away from shooting film... at least 35mm film.