Printing quality involved with digital vs. film

I started a topic recently on MF vs. a digital camera with more mp's
such as the 5D or 1DSMKII. One thing I should have mentioned is the
printing technique. So we take the MF setup since that needs scanning
which the digital does not unless you consider the tiny bit of time to
load in images a scan. We take the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners, maybe the
latter since it is the last higher end model to come out as an
available option to those that cannot buy a new BMW each year. We take
a nice Contax 645 setup, say, and we run through some wonderfully
exposed shots via Nikon 9000 and make HUGE files for them. At this
stage, we now have files from the Canon 5d/1DSMKII AND Contax 645. We
put them both through the post-processing to get what we have learned
to be the very best result on a given printing machine. However, we
must rely on a printer such as the Fuji Frontier or maybe a much more
expensive inkjet type. Question now is, rather than deal with
enlargements...what does the final print actually look like when you
have a digital source as Canon 5D/1DSMKII vs. the film source going
through a digital printer??? In other words, doesn't something like
film "require" a special printer to start competing with digital for
the finished product? Or, can the same results be achieved off the
local digital printer???

How much does printing play a part in all the digital and MF film based
images and what must be done with a film based image to get the same
kind of clarity/resolution "on print" as you can with the digital?