> I really can't see any difference in the two side-by-side examples?

Isn’t that the whole point?

One is actual physical film, the other is a digital camera using their tech to appear like film.

It's like having a regular burger and lab-grown burger next to each other: not being able to tell the difference is the goal.

They should have also included the digital pre-processed shot to show the changes.

You can see muddiness in the really dark areas in the digital version (left ear area for example). Also depths of field are noticeably different in some parts of the image.

But they don't say anything about exposures and focal lengths between the two versions so while I'd like to think I could tell digital apart from film, I'm probably wrong.

I think that's the goal. One side is some special equipment and the other side is their simulation.