Its me thats getting pedantic :) The original point I was making was that regardless of how any format comes out in print, it seems to me a bit bizarre to look at a shrunk down compressed jpeg of a scan or a digital RAW image on a PC screen and make judgements on how one surpasses the other. I'm not saying either is better or worse (though when you get to large print sizes large film wins hands down) just that its not as simple as picking out one web sized jpeg and say 'you could never get that quality with method x', jpg's are jpgs and they are cack as morfe points out, no matter what process went before it! The resolution (72dpi!) and tonal range of a PC screen is also far below what you get in a print so such comparisons dont work.

You never know your luck though, Jessops might stock a boat mounted projector :)