However I'm not really surprised by the end result
I think that is because there is an agenda behind the test. I have only seen the gadget show a couple of times (on the off-chance), and each time I have seen one of their tests, there has been a serious flaw in their proceedures.
You see, to me, if they had used an analogue solution to blow up the film version, and the film used was good quality, then in theory it should have been better than any comparably sized digital print.
Optically, the light hitting the sensor and the film should have been the same, in theory (they should really have had the cameras set on a tripod next to each other, with identical lenses, and shot at the same time, however, one would hope that the photographer took several shots and used the best each time)
The film, being an analogue solution, should not have had any artifacts created by colimation/grids on the sensor, or sensor inacuracies.
Increasing the size of an image on film should (if the film is good quality) not cause there to be much distortion, or artifacts on the image. Whereas the digital process will excacerbate the problems with averaging the light hitting the sensor into pixel areas.
You can think of this test as listening to an opera singer with two different aparatus. 1 set get a baked bean can with a hole, and a hearing aid (film equivalent), and the other set get a telephone.
