There are two aspects to the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci series - the pure mathematical aspects, together with the ways they undeniably relate to some physical and biological phenomena - and the aesthetic aspects.
(In particular, the Golden Ratio has little to do with the Vitruvian Man, contrary to popular belief.)I think the rule of thirds is actually a far better candidate, so don't think I disagree with the principle of what you say. And that seems to be the case regardless of aspect ratio. And surely the whole question of sound and music backs up the principle? Even non-musicians can tell when a note is played off-tune.
Something such as David linked to may give a clue to physiology (mechanics of how the brain can distinguish between frame rates) but much less the psychology (why one should be perceived as better than another). It still doesn't answer the question of if such as Edison had not had any cost/engineering constraints in the early days, what would they have settled on - if their only considerations were aesthetic? David says "a slower frame rate, not looking like reality, is by and large a more appropriate artistic canvas for fiction". Is that universally true though? I'd suggest that certainly in the first few decades of the cinema, the problem the pioneers had was they felt that their product didn't look real enough!
It's an interesting theory, but a lot more research needs to be done. In particular, regarding how a relatively low framerate can give acceptable motion rendition, but totally unacceptable flicker. Hence the introduction of triple and double bladed shutters. How is the brain able to cope with 24 frames per second - but only when each is flashed at least twice? Maybe a good starting point would be to compare brain wave frequencies between countries where HFR is seen as "a good thing", and the opposite?
I'm very sorry you feel like that David, and it has not been my intention to have anything other than a good-faith discussion. I certainly have not ignored things you or others have said and if you feel I have been misrepresenting you then I can only apologise for any careless writing or confusion when trying to address points not originating from you.
What I said was: "the problem the pioneers had was they felt that their product didn't look real enough!" and when I wrote "pioneers" I was thinking of the earliest days, the first couple of decades - something like 1895-1915. Again, I can only apologise if my meaning was not clear. Of the people you quote, the only one who falls into that category I believe is Melies? And a flavour of what I was thinking of is given by his entry in Wikipedia:
Again, I can only apologise if I've been clumsy in my choice of words, but again, much of what I've written has been in response to others than yourself.
"The Truth About Immigration", presented by Nick Robinson, 9.30pm, BBC2 was the one last night, but it's only one example.
I did see it as it happens. Yes it is the way most documentaries are shot these days. I could argue that it looks as if he's speaking from the past, as opposed to "Nick Robinson live from 10 Downing Street". He was, at least in part, telling the story of immigration, going back to the 50's. But it does blur the boundaries of tense, certainly.