[mindcrime]

The assumption that human eyes can be measured in FPS is, in itself, very questionable.

In the strictest sense, yes. But it seems quite reasonable to think that there is something like an "FPS equivalent" for the human eye. I mean, it's not magic, and physics comes into play at some level. There's a shortest unit of time / amount of change that the eye can resolve. From that you could work out something that is analogous to a frame-rate.

And if it were indeed the case, then it would surely be far in access of 60fps

Not necessarily. Quite a few people believe that the human eye "FPS equivalent" is somewhere between 30-60 FPS. That's by no means universally accepted and since it's just an analogy to begin with the whole thing is admittedly a little big dodgy. But by the same token, it's not immediately obvious that the human "FPS equivalent" would be "far in excess of 60 FPS" either.

[Turing_Machine]

> There's a shortest unit of time / amount of change that the eye can resolve.

Sure. Otherwise movies and video wouldn't work at all.