Thanks, yony! Got my 5 Agrees badge thanks to you. You're a star. ;)

I'm a bit confused with the whole FPS thing. I know what it means but how exactly will 48fps look different to 24fps?

48fps will have smoother motion (better for 3D - less ghosting or blurring of the image) than your traditional 24fps image, which, because of how we've been trained to watch things, might result in the 48fps image looking more "video"-like , rather than film. Think the difference between a movie and, say, a sports telecast. It will also have the result of making the image appear sharper, as if it has more resolution. All of which can be jarring, and a lot of people will associate it initially with cheap video production, like soap operas. Of course there's far more to an image than just how motion is perceived. The other thing that really distinguishes a cinematic image (apart from artistic decisions like lighting, production design, etc.) is dynamic range, which (I think) in practice means how wide a spectrum of colours a given camera/film stock can reproduce. And it's clear from the 24fps trailers that The Hobbit's DR is gorgeous. What I want to find out is if 48fps can lift all the technical wizardry of The Hobbit to a new level, or if we won't be able to get past the new look even though it might be, objectively, of a higher quality. So much about cinema is a feeling, and we've been trained to feel that 24fps is right for cinema.

Impeccable taste, sir. :)