Almost every aspect of your post is wrong (regarding the author and the post) or irrelevant (regarding the content).
The author is a filmmaker and was comparing film formats. He watched the Hobbit multiple times on the same night at a state of the art cinema. He watched the (same) film in this film format order: 3DHFR, 3D, 2D, 3DHFR.
Therefore, the content could technically have been any film and the elements of immersion compared were across the same content.
It is shame there was no 2DHFR format to compare though.
Also, given that he says he couldn't hear dialogue very well in the 3DHFR version makes me think he either sat in a bad seat or the cinema had issues.
Did he sit in the same seat for all showings?
His stuff about motion blur is complete rubbish as well. They (Weta) had to add motion blur in post because the shutter speed meant they didn't get much of that on recorded footage. (They also had issues matching the motion blur on HDR shoots they did where they did multiple simultaneous exposure bracketing). Any CG out of PRMan will also have been rendered out to match that exact same shutter speed (48 fps at 270 deg). So I really can't understand how he can think that watching the 2D version - which he himself admits has half as much motion blur as it should do - gave a better impression of motion. It might look less "cinema-ry", but that doesn't seem to be his point.
The author is a filmmaker and was comparing film formats. He watched the Hobbit multiple times on the same night at a state of the art cinema. He watched the (same) film in this film format order: 3DHFR, 3D, 2D, 3DHFR.
Therefore, the content could technically have been any film and the elements of immersion compared were across the same content.
It is shame there was no 2DHFR format to compare though.