I seem to recall a large format positive film has a resolution in the giga-pixel range.
Film resolution is usually expressed in lpm (lines per millimetre) but that is not quite a direct equivalent of digitial image resultion. Its an expression of the best possible level of detail that film can show, wheras digital resolution just says how big the image is. A typical good quality professional film has a resolution of around 100 lpm, but each line needs two rows of pixels, one dark and one light so the equivalent digitial resolution of the film will be 200 pixels per millimetre. A 35mm film frame is 36 x 24 mm, so at 200 ppm
(36 x 200) x (24 x 200) = 7,200 pixels x 4,800 pixels = 34,560,000 pixels, or around 35 MP
Medium format film has several aspect ratios, 645, 66, 67, 68, 69 and (rarely) 610 but as near as I can figure, most of the Apollo surface photography was on 66 (60mm x 60mm format)
(60 x 200) x (60 x 200) = 12000 pixels x 12000 pixels = 144,000,000 or around 150 MP
Large format film usually comes in three formats 5 x 4" (125mm x 100mm) 7 x 5 (175mm x 125mm) and 10 x 8" (250mm x 200mm)
5 x 4 = (125 x 200) x (100 x 200) = 25000 pixels x 20000 pixels = 500,000,000 or arounf 500 MP
Its not until you get up to the 10 x 8 format that "gigapixels" kick in
10 x 8 = (250 x 200) x (200 x 200) = 50000 pixels x 40000 pixels = 2,000,000,000 or around 2 GP
However I cannot see any advantage in using large format film on space missions. The advantages of better resultion will surely be outweighed by the disadvantages. The film base itself is much thicker than a 120 or 135 film (adding weight) and the photographic equipment is much larger and heavier. Also, the film is so physically large that at anything approaching short focal lengths, you have to start taking into account the "petzval field curvature" and that gets very complcated.