To me, the big difference going into The Hobbit movies was knowing that many of the same people behind the cameras were back. Obviously it was PJ directing again, but it was also Andrew Lesnie shooting. The fact they were using RED Epics (they had to use digital cameras to shoot in 3D) was a worthy tradeoff to me, since LotR was shot in Super 35 and the Epic's sensor is only slightly bigger. Unlike AotC and RotS, the look of these digital prequels would be very close to their film-based counterparts. Native 3D seemed like a natural choice for something like The Hobbit anyway

When they announced (the week after they started shooting, lol) that this (these) would be the first 3D movie(s) to be shot at 48p, something Cameron had wanted to do for the first Avatar, I was enthusiastic. I'd actually assumed that all 3D showings would be the 48-frame version, until I found out the projectors required expensive firmware upgrades and they'd be differentiating the higher framerate version - and only at select locations - with the moniker "hfr."

When I saw that very first teaser trailer, there was something I couldn't quite put my finger on. It looked "kind of" the same and yet different at the same time. They seemed to be using more wide-angle shots, perhaps to show off the 3D, sure, but there was something else...

When the first movie came out, I saw the 48-frame version in Imax 3D and was, overall, blown away by it. The stuff they added definitely slowed the movie down, but the prologue floored me and the movie looked gorgeous.

But here's the tradeoff.

In order to shoot in 48p they had to raise the shutter speed slightly, so that each individual frame was sharper. This makes the 24p version look a little choppy. This is how The Hobbit trilogy will always be "stuck" in the same way AotC and RotS are "stuck."