Let's go through the points:
Perfection: To some degree, I agree with that. Training to avoid mistakes in the first place, to provide clean work at every milestone is a good habit, as long as it does not interfere with getting the work done at all. It can, of course, and like in this case, be exaggerated, but sometimes one finds that the more disciplined one is in making sure one has done the best to produce a clean job, the more it becomes ingrained as a second personality to not accept second best. Of course, few people can uphold it to a practical 100% level, but of course if one can do so, there is no surprise they get top jobs or earn a lot of money: if a consultant can regularly deliver practically perfect work under time pressure, one is worth every bit of that. In academia, the time pressure is less, but if one has consistently high standards, this will create a reputation for reliability. Which is quite a high currency.
Independence: This is slightly more contentious, but still can make sense. To some extent, it means that you are able to work on your own, depend on your own judgement and are required to understand things for yourself. It will grow your knowledge and competence as individual. Given that our world is increasingly requiring collaboration, this may look like an obsolete expectation, and perhaps it is. However, if you, as an individual, master this, it makes you stand out from the crowd. As academic, it is increasingly frowned upon to work as individual, while it used to be a sign of particular competence few decades ago to be able to do so. Of course, this is not everybody's style, and in my own opinion, everyone should choose their favourite position on the cooperation slider (as long as it does not interfere with academic assessment misconduct, of course; or one leeches the work of other people to advance oneself).
Work schedule: Clearly, there are people who are ready and able to work the 13-14 hours a day every day of the week. That's a very particular breed of people. Top-level politicians, with all sneer they get from the public, belong to that type. However, the fact that one can not uphold this should not mean that one does something wrong. This is simply a biological limitation. There is a good reason why reasonable countries have a guideline of a 40-hour week distributed on 5 days; it can vary a bit, but not far; for most people, productivity simply drops drastically beyond that (not talking about quality of life). So, if you cannot fulfil the work effort expectation of this supervisor, there is nothing wrong with you, but this group is not for you, and you better switch group, the earlier the better.
This supervisor certainly earned his fearsome reputation and success and those who managed to survive his "Navy Seals" approach to research certainly did so, too. But this is definitely not the only route to success, and may also not be the right route, either, depending on which type of science one is aiming for.
What is important is for you to realise that there is no shame in deciding that this is not for you if you cannot uphold this schedule until the end. Identify what you want to do and who would be doing this, not just because someone's group has a "guaranteed reputation", but because you like the work they do and their style of work matches yours.
Caveat: If the prof is professional, he should be rational and cool about your switch. Mismatch of styles happen, that's the way it is.
However, be prepared for the following. There is a distinct possibility that, should you indeed resolve to switch, this prof will react in one of two ways which you should both ignore: either they will try to put you down and say something along the lines that he "always knew your work was unsatisfactory and it's better for you to leave"; or they will actually try to keep you because essentially what they did to you was what some call "tough love" and "black pedagogy".
If any of these two should happen, do not pay attention to it and do not fall for it.
In the first case, they try to justify their own "failure" to get you over the goal line at the expense of putting you down. Do not get goaded by that. Just take your leave from them in a professional way.
The second case, I think, would be even more despicable (and it occurs, make no mistake): it means they actually liked your work and they tried to get you get better by treating you badly. Once you have come to the conclusion that the above schedule is not sustainable and have committed to the switch, do not be tempted to give in to this and to try further. As discussed above, this mode of operation is this guy's recipe for success - do not expect things to change if you then again decide to stay. You have already sunk 8 months of your life, things will continue to go the way they went before.
TL;DR Decide if this style is for you, at least until completion. If it's not, find a different group to work with and do not look back.
EDIT As Prof. Santa Claus says in a comment, "perfection" in the sense of a text (reasonably) free of spelling errors or non-compiling code is a default minimum expectation.
When I return corrections to a student and then with every correction iteration, there is still a considerable chance that I will find new errors introduced, not in the new material added, but in the parts that have been read but those that are being corrected, this is one of the few things that can seriously test my tolerance. It's ok to make mistakes first time around, but once one fixes them, one needs to take care. I am, of course, not saying that this is the case for OP, just make sure it's not you doing these things.