Saw it, a couple of my friend were interviewed in it.  I thought it was okay.  It was a film for lay people, really.  It was a good intro to the subject, but didn't delve as deeply as I would have liked.

- Branco

Little under 10K if I remember correctly. The pure math churns out 9.3K but it's based on some assumptions (15-perf 65mm IMAX).

I mostly agree with Gzarra's take on it. The doc seemed very biased towards digital and didn't make a strong case against it. They only had like 2-3 vocal anti-digital people in the doc, and they got maybe a combined 5 minutes. That bugs me, because there are legitimate arguments there about the look of one vs the other.
You look at the 2 biggest film and digital movies just this year, Dark Knight Rises and Avengers, and Dark Knight completely blows away Avengers visually, like it's not even close. Yes digital can look great (Skyfall, any Fincher movie post 2000), but there's an aesthetic look that I'm not certain can be reproduced.

That's the biggest issue with it to me, at a certain point, it won't be about "quality", because yes, we'll have 8k, and 12k, and 16k. The issue is the specific look you get in a Lawrence of Arabia or an Apocalypse Now or a Dirty Harry. Nothing coming out these days looks like that anymore, and it really bugs me. Everything is just super, super clean and flat.

What I'd really like is to learn about what can be done in terms of faking that look. Obviously you can do stuff with filters, but I'm not convinced you can get it close enough to look right. The argument that one vs the other is now going to be just an "aesthetic" choice is all well and good, but I think Nolan is completely right to question whether that choice will even be available to film-makers in 10-20 years. When the entire production pipeline for film breaks down, guess what, you won't be able to shoot/develop/process film whether you want to or not, and that will be a real shame.

Thanks for the outstanding writeup! That was exactly the stuff I was hoping someone would explain.