He claims that digital technology has exceeded film technology.
I am not asking about is digital better or worse than film, or even going back to film, but i dont believe its possible for digitial (right now) to collect as much as film. Am I wrong on this one?
It all depends on what measurements you are comparing, format size, color vs. B&W and even if you include discontinued film or not. It also can get into LPMM (lines per mm) that is view-able to the human eye, can be printed, or viewed on a monitor. Dynamic range is another thing, but that also includes ISOs.
You have to take into account that digital sensors also have the Bayer pattern and various dots are combined to create an image. Simplistic view would say horizontal pixels are combined at a ratio of 2:1. If you watch closely this is not always the case which is illustrated by the vertical height of images decrease as the ISO rises.
For film, you must note that each brand, ISO, and film type is very different. There are very specialized films for scientific use with particular properties enhanced like resolution, that were way beyond the best consumer films and were never widely available. Do you compare discontinued films? Kodachrome 64 was very high in various aspects but is no longer, and never will be made again.
You are asking a question that has many variables that need to be qualified and defined before making an answer. The question you asked is so over-simplified it could never be answered. Even if you picked one definition, the argument falls apart when you fail to use the variables that should carry more weight when the end use is addressed and changed. (i.e. scientific, 4x6 size, 20x36, panoramic, art, etc.)
I do understand what you are saying/asking. No matter what argument you look at, there is the practical question of "If film is better, why did Kodak fall from grace?" Even if Film is better in numerous regards, you can not deny that Digital has won the battle and film will never regain it's former glory.