Which I can argue is pretty good for beta software, with very little heavy commercial use driving performance down. I also highly doubt the chrome/firefox team has enough resources allocated to truly make webgl a high performance thing yet. Regardless this is still faster then using canvas directly.

Don't go to a movie theater. They call it "moving pictures" when they sell you the ticket, but it is only 24 frames per second, and the individual frames don't move. Bogus.

Movies have motion blur which smooths out the judders of a low framerate

In addition, human eye can detect flicker better in a bright room, vs a dark one. That's why movies can get away with 24 fps, and not something higher.

That said, you don't need 60fps to enjoy what you're watching unless you're playing games.

This is not very optimized app. There is a lot of overdraw for the volumetric effect and jellyfish transparency which kills the performance most of all. Also, animations are done in vertex shader on a high poly geometry and the shader itself could be much more efficient in doing that.

Im sure you cant run Crysis 2 in WebGL but you can still squeeze out a lot of performance out of it. Im excited to see what other people are going to make with it.

Counterpoint:

I get 30 FPS on a machine with an Intel E2180 @2GHz processor and a GeForce 8400 GS...

Chrome 10 on WinXP 32bit.

My first thought was rate limiting, I tweaked the settings for speed and still capped out at 50fps.