With arbitrary numbers: if the original paper was printed at 100dpi, and the film captured 1000dpi, then the losses from copying that film might not make a real difference in fidelity.
In the analog world, you have to think about signal-to-noise ratios instead of DPI. Any given copying technique will add some small but nonzero amount of randomness to the output, which destroys some information.
The way digital copying gets around this problem is by having predefined signal levels that are farther apart than the vast majority of copying error, and writing a new master every time instead of the analog copy.
The first copy is unlikely to, since a random error (i.e. an unintentionally developed silver grain) will only introduce a distortion 1/10th the size of the original smallest detail. But what about after 10,000 copies? Scattering random 1/10th sized blobs all over the original details is still going to do something to the experience.
Sure, so long as you assume the transfer is 100% perfect with no errors or artifacts and can make subsequent copies similarly. In practice, few physical processes can offer that level of assurance, and digital copies can.
