The technologies are too different to compare them in similar terms, imo. Film is way better, digital looks like crap, also imo.
It's not about resolution, but contrast/tonality and color.
'As expected, the film camera appears to capture slightly more detail than the digital camera. Perhaps a higher resolution scan would yield even more detail, although I think this is reasonably close to this film's limit. However, as expected, the film image looks extremely grainy. From my perspective, I prefer the digital image. Even in a 4x6 print, the film grain is visible, while the digital image looks fantastically smooth. An 8x10 print is still small enough that the theoretical resolution advantage of film is invisible, but large enough that the film grain is clearly apparent (to my eyes). As the print size increases, the graininess of the film becomes objectionable long before its technical resolution advantage becomes visible.
Of course, this is subjective, and different people will reach different conclusions. However, it is definitely worth seeing some prints made from digital images before concluding that they can't be as good as film-based prints based on resolution numbers alone. Nonetheless, if you don't mind the grain and want the most resolution possible, it still looks like film has the edge.'
Film vs. Digital