From the article in discussion:
"
In my opinion, film is not necessarily about WHAT you see—but it's almost more an exercise in what you DON'T or CAN'T see. The best directors and DPs show you only what is relevant to the story and never introduce a random shot or character if they can at all avoid it. I've always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or shots that detract from it.
The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it's just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen—it's called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, he motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures. This is precisely why one should shoot at 1/50th of a second on their HDSLRs and use ND or neutral density filters to makes sure they don't have too much depth of field and can also ensure they aren't forced into shooting at higher shutter speeds.
In the past few years we've been pushing the technology envelope pretty hard—trying to get higher frame rates, greater resolution, more dynamic range, more bit depth, more throughput/bit rates and RAW.
Yet for some reason, many top cinematographers and even directors out there still prefer shooting in 2K or 4K/5K…and why is that?"
The article is written from the underlined Theory, or film writing style perspective.
If one accepts that position, ok. The Hobbit, and JR's books in particular, don't seem to fit particularly well into that philosophy of movie making. The spectacular shots Jackson used in the Trilogy were not necessary, or minimalist. Nor are the movies edited down to support this philosophy of movie making. The Hobbit clearly meanders through a long story line, and that is part of it's charm. That may not sit well with people who are impatient, who fast forward through terrible movies like Killer Joe, etc.
While I'm reading through this, I will renew my objection to 3D: Long term fooling your brains perception of distance may prove not a good thing for humans. On the other hand, film is fooling your brain into thinking a series of still images are moving, and that seems to work for us.
As for the guy being a doofus because it's his perception of the movie:
That IS the issue. How the technology is perceived compared to other formats. Our current agreed perception, at least mine and Mercs, that 3D as we have experienced it is not worth the cost of brightness and clarity, is nothing more then our perceptions.
Having a director/producer in the family, though now departed, I am aware that there are more then one view, or theory on cinematic production and philosophy. What is crystal clear is this format in particular really rubs this particular writer, since it totally fails in his perception of how film should be produced, the wrong way.
What I did get out of this is that from the writer's perspective, that of a respected photographer, and fledgling film director, who has NEVER done anything but shorts, and only 4 of those, is he was not enamored with the format.
Have a look at his website:
http://www.laforetvisuals.com/
I think that gives you a pretty clear perspective on how he likes to use 3D.
I like this, just for the audio, and the fact that it shows exactly how much experience this guy has with 3D film photography:
http://vimeo.com/7151244
4 shorts, 3 minutes each, maybe?
His end comments are certainly a better perspective on the issue then his writing:
"FOLLOW UP NOTE: This is easily one of the most popular "opinion" pieces that I’ve written on this blog. Normally this kind of traffic and discussion only truly takes place when it comes to exclusive gear reviews. Last night the post was being read by a thousand more people every 10-15 minutes at times. So far this article has been read on this blog 33,519 times in under 12 hours and on Gizmodo 61,181 times in 2 hours. What this tells me is that there is INTENSE interest with this new technique and that it’s hitting a nerve. And I’m finding (unusually respectful) dissent – with people finding they feel the exact opposite. Or didn’t notice the effect at all. While others couldn’t agree more. On average (and gain unscientific) it seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique(as I did.) Another thing I’m reading is that the technique "grew" on people as the film went on. I should mention that I did pop back into an HFR screening to see one scene AFTER I did the cycle that ended on 2D – and found my opinion had not changed at all, and that it hat not grown on me.
Again: Fascinating."
I suspect this sort of film is more easily accepted by the video game generation then someone who has spent his life making money using a 2D, still shot format.