Martin. I have 35mm negatives showing the same kind of definition as your example, but this is still an order of magnitude or more away from the kind of thing that Gigabit are showing.(posted 8649 days ago)
If you look at the structure of the image in your example, it has the typical appearance of diffraction limiting; the outlines are beginning to show fringing effects. Now compare that with the slightly blurred outlines of the watch hands shown on Gigabit's site. Gigabit's image just doesn't show the characteristics of a diffraction limited image.
Come on Martin, let's have a bit of a reality check here. Your picture shows a road sign at about the same apparent distance as Gigabit's watch hand. The letters on the road sign have to be, what? 1cm thick at least: A hand on a ladies watch is 1mm thick at most (more likely less than 0.5mm).
Do you really think that Gigabit film will improve the resolution of your lens by 20 fold?BTW, the lens in question was not an ordinary process lens, but a high resolution f/4, 'wide field' (~15 degrees coverage) 10:1 reduction lens.
Our really high definition (>1000lppm with blue light) f/1.4 lens was hidden away in the step-and-repeat camera, but only covered a few degrees. Nobody attemps 100:1 reductions in one bite and expects them to be 'sharp'.
If you really think that a normal camera lens working at an unspecified ratio, with broad-band light can beat it, then go ahead and try this Gigabit 'miracle film'. Then see if Gigabit can supply the alternative universe, where the fundamental laws of optics don't apply, and less money buys you a better product.