Of course there is no mention about what 35mm camera is in question but Nikon is the only one offering D3x as a Hasseblad alternative so it is obvious who they are referring to.
And of course, if you go down to and beyond pixel sizes while magnifying pictures, that 39Mpix sensor with bigger pixels would give sharper images than 24Mpix one with smaller pixels, but my point was that FF 35mm DSLR could give picture as sharp as Hasseblad for normal and usefull magnifications and could really be used as an alternative to Hasselblad for most of the work (and for field work 35mm CMOS DSLR is much better) while costing at least 5 time less.

I haven't found any information that Hasselblad was comparing to Nikon, only to 35 DSLR alternative - and there are at least 2 other companies that make FF cameras. As for sharpness, once You magnify more You will see that H is sharper than the 35mm

CCD is cheaper to make in smaller series and is actually still very usable technology under good lighting. On the other hand I am sure Hasselblad would use CMOS if they could afford it.
Actually the shot with 35mm was deliberately made using not so perfect lighting, and it is really sad that Hasselblad is comparing his 50000$ set with 10000$ Nikon like this. On the other hand it still seams to me that Nikon is sharper:

I would also recommend looking into the lens prices...

Just checked the prices for the cameras used in the comparison test, and... for the cheapest one You can get 2.5 d3x and for the most expensive one You could get almost 4.5 d3x :)

And of course they select a worse shot for the 35mm picture. I'm sure buying a hasselblad will make my models' hair get blown much more artistically.

Try taking that picture in available light and then tell me which one looks better. CCD Will always do better in the studio.

I know she has good looking lips, but who looks blows up a photo just to look at the lips? :D

And I think the Hasselblad is way more expensive than the full frame DSLR, so it really is a bit of a moot point.

I'll take the bate Niko.

I'm to busy today to argue, so allow this to link to be a proxy for what I want to say:

http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx

That's why I always have trouble calling somebody with a Hasselblad. Dunno why but it seems the menu structure is too complex to find the dialer.... or I'm just silly ;)

I feel like throwing fuel on the CCD Vs CMOS debate.

Side by side comparison between a 22, 31, and 39 megapixel CCD sensor equipped Hasselblad and a 35mm full frame DSLR that I suspect is a 24megapixel CMOS packing D3X but let's just pretend it's a 21 megapixel canon 5DmkII because Nikon and Hassey are good old friends :^)
Yes, yes I know apples and oranges, bayer filter, lenses, blah, blah, blah...

Zoom all the way into the model's lips.
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/virtual-demo-overview/hasselblad-image-quality/resolution.aspx#wrapper

This is the reason I always rent a Hasselblad to take pictures at my nephew's birthday party and I only use my iphone at the studio.... wait I think that's the other way around. I forget sometimes with my old age and all.

(Thanks for the link Ben)