Thats been around for a while and from what i have read of people that have seen the prints, the consensus is they are amazing in resolution and blah in composition, but then again its a heavy beast. They pass out magnifying glasses at the exhibits
I am still not 100% convinced its that much better than a top film, camera, lens and scan from anything else, like maybe 2 stitched 8x10 scans.
I personally have done a 3000 dpi scan of an 8x10 that was very sharp, but the file is so big its almost unworkable. Stitching 2 together would even worse, but if you did you could end up with 1360 mp. Printing at 240 dpi you could print at 96" H x 240" L.
Of course there is no printer that big and no computer fast enough that I could afford to stitch an image that big.
There was another guy, an artist that did it first about a year or two before these guys. Everything custom, vacuum back, special lens, aerial film etc. His famous shot was of a mountain range.
http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/R1-press-nytimes1.html