Just how much image content is film capable of.

Question

This isn't a question. Here are a few large-format transparencies that I am about to get digitally scanned. Mounted in cardboard.
They were all taken with an  unusual medium format camera and an exotic lens. They are all tansparencies. The format is 2 1/4 x 8". Kodak Ektachrome. I copied these using a light box for accurate color with my Nikon D7000 and 60mm Micro Lens. By my calculations the film area works out to 18 in/sq, a little less than 4x5 sheet film. That was considered big in the days of film.
The lens was the Schneider Wide Super Angulon. Mounted on a Linhof Technica Wide. This combo was used worldwide for photographing  an entire graduating class at schools. I don't know the inclusive angle of the lens. The Linhof body accepted a variety of film backs. The 2.25 X 8" wasn't sheet film. Instead it was just plain 220 roll film. With these medium, you could, i believe, get about 5 or 6 continuous shots on one roll.
The photo session was somewhat urgent and I had long wanted to photograph one of our company 747s on the ground. In detail. FedEx had acquired my airline, which Flying Tigers. And these shots show the very last of the Tiger cargo planes before it was stripped of paint and repainted with the FedEx logo and orange & blue stripes. The next day the plane looked like all other FedEx planes.
I owned a Hasselblad, but I wanted something more. Something special. I called a pro photagrapher friend with a lot of equipment and he came over the the Flying Tiger hangar at Los Angeles International Airport. It sits less than a mile inland from the Pacific Ocean and it was light fog down about 1000 feet altitude.
Shortly after, I submitted the tansparancy showing me standing on the wing to a lab and had a Cibachrome print made. $125. In 1991, that was a lot of money for a color print. It measured about 14" X 40" framed. (45x102cm). You could literally count the rivets on the fuselage because of the resolution.
For reference, the height of the tail is 66 feet (about 20 meters). Wingtip to wingtip  the plane measures 196 feet (60 meters). Floor level in the cockpit is 32 feet, close to 10 meteres. I live the world of Digital, but in some  respects film is nothing to laugh at. Please comment.

Answer 1

A few questions abou the new scanners first. What do they cost?
These scanners aren't new. Polaroid is out of business, and I believe the Nikons are discontinued. The cost would be whatever they are selling for, used, on eBay or Amazon. Search for them there.
The Windows operating system is mentioned --- can a Mac owner use these machines?
Yes, if you have the proper connections and software.
Lastly, they mention scsi ports and Firewire. Those are legacy connectors. How would a moden Mac with only Thunderbolt and USB-3 connect?
SCSI is legacy, Firewire is still current. If your Mac doesn't have a Firewire port, you can use a Thunderbolt to Firewire adaptor. I guess you can say, legacy scanners use legacy connections.
As I mentioned in my first response, I have a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000. It has SCSI connections. When the scanner was made, in the early 90s, Macs were shipping with SCSI connectors. Since SCSI was rare for PCs, the scanner shipped with an included SCSI card. I was using it originally with a PowerMac 9600, followed later by a Power Mac G4 MDD, a MacMini Mid 2007, and currently a MacMini Late 2009.
I have a Ratoc SCSI to Firewire adaptor, also a legacy/discontinued hardware item, that allows it to be used with the MacMinis.
Software is also an issue. The original Polaroid software was discontinued and replaced with SilverFast software a couple of years before scanner production ceased. I missed out on this by a year and was forced to purchase SilverFast on my own, around $300. Updating SilverFast is expensive, so I stopped after the version for Snow Leopard. I still have a bootable SL partition, so I can use SilverFast with it. With Mavericks, I use VueScan software.
I don't have any experience with the Nikon scanners, but as they include Firewire connections, you wouldn't have to deal with SCSI issues. I would also guess that Nikon may not have kept up with the scanning software, so something like SilverFast or VueScan may also be required.
In summary, the market for these scanners died with the transition from film to digital.
http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/products/FR1SX.html
Note: I bought the Polaroid over the Nikon because, at the time of purchase, the Nikon scanners were 2000 dpi and the Polaroid was 4000 dpi. About a year later, Nikon introduced 4000 dpi versions. The Nikon had some advantages over the Polaroid, most notably the way film strips could be fed into the scanner, and the use of LED lighting in lieu of florescent. The LED lighting allowed greater flexibility dark slides and negatives.