Just bought company tickets to Peter Jackson's The Hobbit in High Frame Rate 3d.  Having experimented with High Frame Rate 3d, I'm very enthused to see it in Imax 3d.  We just completed filming some 24p 3d for MTV Films, and I kept thinking about 48p.  Mr. Jackson's choosing 48 fps as it's twice the current "standard" theatrical frame rate of 24p, and will be easy to provide for both the High Frame Rate release and the standard release.  He's writing about his experiments with 48p and the reasons for his decision to go forward with this format on his facebook page.
In the world of 3d, often our goal is to minimize viewer fatigue and discomfort - to match color, focus, alignment and avoid lens flare and specularity, as these introduce discrepancies in what one eye see versus the other eye, and is unnatural in our world.  The DP, Director of Photography, I was working with last week's feeling is that he's heard this all before during the transition to HD, and all of the engineering advice proved to be less important than artistic intent, and was best ignored, or at least given little consideration relative to the artistic perspective.  Reports from journalists who saw a short screening of Mr. Jackson's High Frame Rate 3d disagree with Mr. Jackson, and compare is to being on set as opposed to seeing it onscreen.  I've also been noticing a back-lash of sorts in the industry against 3d, and merit given to the, "you know, you don't have to film in 3d, you can do it in post", from the same people who advocate practical camera effects over doing it in post.   
Stereoscopic filming, "3d", is still in its infancy, and lots of the 3d films I see are produced with a 2d mentality and fail in 3d, and occasionally there's a film that showcases what's possible.  Highest hopes for The Hobbit, Mr. Jackson.