I love his take on the term "3-D" as well, because it isn't actually 3-D at all. The images are not jutting out off the screen. It's only an illusion, just as a normal film print of a movie gives the illusion of three dimensions on a flat surface using variations in light, movement and detail, stereoscopic does the same, but in a unique, digital way.

When looking at digital vs. film, its easy to side with film being film enthusiasts that we are and that Nolan obviously is. Thing is, it comes down to the DP. A good DP can make digital look like super 35mm no problem.

I'm glad Nolan admitted the conversion stuff can look pretty good. I am not for 3D in any format, but I think in the next year people's opinions of "only shoot 3D if you want 3D" will change completely. Shooting 3D is a huge problem, and limits the shooting process. The few converted movies we've seen so far were guinea pigs, and conversion technology is growing rapidly in the right direction. We also might as well warm up to the idea of 3D Batman, because its coming.

no, no its not. i love nolan but that's a little naive of him. the studios will always decide, and people will pay whatever ticket prices they set… unless there were alternative cinemas. hmm…