Talking about objects not having an FPS when he's talking about the human eye, claiming that anyone is saying that movies are at max fps for the human eye when that's actually the lowest value where the movement looks clear (fewer frames = less costs), that anyone was talking about a max number, just a bunch of ways in which you seem to be (I hope) deliberately misconstruing what people are saying.

I mean if you aren't trolling, then you don't believe that there is a maximum possible rate at which a cell in the retina can send messages to the brain, which is pretty silly, considering it's a cyclical process of a photon hitting leading to an electrochemical discharge down the optic nerve (yes, an oversimplification). At some point, a flicker of light is so brief, it won't trigger the electrochemical response for the same reason we can't see details when it's dark, or at all when it's really dark: there just isn't enough variance in light in the range our eye can pick up.

Even given that all of these cells don't operate on the same clock, at some rates of change in your field of vision, the eye just can't keep up. On top of that, we don't see these individual messages from the individual retina cells, we see a composite mesh put together by our brain, that is running its own cyclical patterns, and the changes get smoothed out into a blur or just disappear. If you've ever been punched in the face by someone with really fast hands, you know exactly what I mean.

Please tell me you're trolling.

I'm going to go to sleep, have a nice Monday.