This is pretty impressive. I've always liked the idea of a dual-projector setup since you can seamlessly stitch the 2 displays as one. I think this would be a little too expensive for that though... For those of you who don't know, you need a VERY tiny LCD inside the projector. What I find strange, and a bit annoying, is how a company like BenQ can manage to fit a 4K display smaller than a smartphone screen, yet I haven't heard any VR headsets moving to 4K any time soon. I understand they're different technologies (LCD vs OLED) but I'm willing to sacrifice contrast ratio for better resolution.

It's not about the resolution, it's the refresh rate and processing power. Most small displays are limited to 60hz, while VR displays need to run at 90hz+ to avoid motion sickness (and even at 90 some people still have issues). To pull off a constant 90+ fps at WUHD resolution, even with the simplified graphics of VR games today, you would need a very high-end PC, edging towards $2000 (think GTX 1080 and a quad core CPU) before the cost of the headset itself, which would likely be well over $1000 on its own. In other words, they could probably build it, but almost nobody would be able to afford to buy it. The current headsets were designed from a cost-performance balance, and hence a sub-$1000 PC requirement. Honestly, the best chance we have for widespread VR adoption is the PS VR and whatever MS has planned for the One X. The entry cost has to be low enough that people will take the risk in buying one, then devs will get on board and start making more than basic games for the format. The cost on the PC side is still too high for most people to risk, even with the price drops on the headsets, but a $500 console coupled with a $300 headset might be cheap enough to pull people in, especially if they can get a launch title that looks good enough. Basically, MS would need to pull off a launch like the original Xbox, with a title as attractive as the original Halo to make people sit up and listen.

Since my experience with dual 300W projectors I say no to those heat generators. Maybe if I lived in very cold country and had cheap electricity at same time. But typical 500W of heat is just too much for display device.

It's not about the resolution, it's the refresh rate and processing power.

Refresh rate is an understandable problem, however processing power is a different story. Nothing states you have to play the games at the maximum resolution. At the very least, a 4K display ought to help eliminate the screen door effect. Things may still appear to be blurry or have jagged edges, but at least you probably won't see the black lines anymore. Also, most decent gaming PCs could at the very least handle 3D videos in 4K resolutions, too.

Refresh rate is an understandable problem, however processing power is a different story. Nothing states you have to play the games at the maximum resolution. At the very least, a 4K display ought to help eliminate the screen door effect. Things may still appear to be blurry or have jagged edges, but at least you probably won't see the black lines anymore. Also, most decent gaming PCs could at the very least handle 3D videos in 4K resolutions, too.

While true, the idea of running anything under the full recommended resolution of a panel has never been received well. From a market image perspective, having customers pay a thousand bucks for a headset that gives them noticeably blurry images would probably not be a great idea in a market that has made very few inroads at this point. On top of it, the press coverage would be horrible - just look at all of the early comparison videos between the image quality of the PS4 and Xbox One for an idea of how the press looks at things that have even a small amount of visual quality difference (in that case, games rendered at 720p vs 900p and upscaled to 1080p). Those articles played a major role in MS losing the early adoption wars and set up Sony to be the dominant force for several years. Once the comparison shots between the panels running at 4k on a $2000 machine and 1080p on a $1000 one made their rounds, the image of the product would be damaged beyond easy repair, even if the basis of the entire thing is silly. As for 4k 3D movies - well... have you seen a 3D capable 4k TV? There aren't any. The UHD Blu-Ray movies themselves play *either* in 4k HDR, 1080p 3D, or 1080p 2D - there's no 4k 3D standard or format. The major TV makers have all abandoned 3D altogether, the fact that there is 3D on the new BD format at all is just the studios in a state of denial that audiences are not interested in 3D in their home. I really doubt that having each person you are watching a movie with needing to wear a bulky VR headset is going to bring about a renaissance in that market at this point.

While true, the idea of running anything under the full recommended resolution of a panel has never been received well. From a market image perspective, having customers pay a thousand bucks for a headset that gives them noticeably blurry images would probably not be a great idea in a market that has made very few inroads at this point.

The image wouldn't look any worse than it does now. Like I said, if anything, it'd look better due to the smaller pixels. But, you do still have valid points.

Once the comparison shots between the panels running at 4k on a $2000 machine and 1080p on a $1000 one made their rounds, the image of the product would be damaged beyond easy repair, even if the basis of the entire thing is silly.

Wait which product's image are you suggested would be damaged? Regardless, I guess for me it's the practicality. For me personally, I'd rather buy a device with a lot of potential than buy something worse that I can fully take advantage of out-of-the-box. After all, VR headsets aren't cheap so I'd like to get the most out of my moey. But again, I see your points.

As for 4k 3D movies - well... have you seen a 3D capable 4k TV? There aren't any. The UHD Blu-Ray movies themselves play *either* in 4k HDR, 1080p 3D, or 1080p 2D - there's no 4k 3D standard or format. The major TV makers have all abandoned 3D altogether, the fact that there is 3D on the new BD format at all is just the studios in a state of denial that audiences are not interested in 3D in their home. I really doubt that having each person you are watching a movie with needing to wear a bulky VR headset is going to bring about a renaissance in that market at this point.

I actually have seen a 3D capable 4K TV, from someone who used to work at Apple and got a good deal on one. But, they are very rare. Regardless, keep in mind though that 3D videos are different from VR 3D videos; I should've made that clearer. You can't watch a VR video on a 3D TV. Many of these videos actually are already in 4K, albeit that's for the entire rendered area, not the viewport. I agree that VR movies probably aren't going to get that popular. It's probably going to be as successful as movies on LaserDisc. But, VR videos are a very different experience. For example, if you've seen any of those 360 degree videos on youtube, you can comfortably watch those in VR. They're not in 3D, but it still feels like you're in them. Meanwhile, there are other videos where they are full 3D but you can't turn your head much beyond 45 degrees without seeing black. These are a very different experience, and at that, an experience that isn't very cinematic at all. They're still very entertaining, but not the kind of entertainment you sit through for an hour and a half. As a side note, you can watch 2D movies in VR. It's like your own personal movie theater. The extra pixels would definitely help there.