My world was analog for many years. My profession not only demanded that I change with the digital revolution, but I personally have always had an inherent interest both in physics and all types of imaging techniques. I worked a lot with computers in my lifetime as well. I don't prefer one mode over the other. But there are benefits of using one over the other.
The following link will help those who are more technically-minded understand the capabilities and limitations of each. It will also help those desiring a more visually-intensive understanding, to understand visually as well. It is not necessary to understand the "why" in order to use the "how".
Scanner Detail, R.N. Clark's Photography
Only the 4x5 resolves the grass blades. The 35mm resolves clumps of grass blades. In the 35mm scans, it is hard to tell what is grain and what is real image detail. There is some of both. Below, other images will be compared between the actual scene (above) with images of a print from the 4x5 image. That comparison will help show what is real versus what is grain in 35mm. In any case, the images here illustrate the advantage of film size.
Scanner Detail, R.N. Clark's Photography.
Resolution Test Area 2: trees and Mountains
A second area is shown where the 35mm 6000 DPI scan is shown at 100% and other scans are shown relative to the 6000 dpi scan. The 4x5 image is still best. There is a significant increase in detail from 2700 DPI to 6000 DPI 35mm, and proportionally in between. The is only a slight increase in detail from 4000 to 6000 DPI because grain is resolved better, but that increase is important for big enlargements (more than about 11x14). On a 72 DPI monitor, these images are equivalent to a 72x91 inch enlargement. After the drum scans are scans of the 35mm slide on an HP Photosmart (the original SCSI model), a Nikon LS2000, and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. Again, note the detail differences from the drum scans, and the detail differences at higher dpi.