I don't need a virtual 4K monitor. I can turn my head to see more, just like I do in real life. How close do you have to be to see the pixels in a 4K monitor, and at that point, can you see the entire monitor without looking around?

I want the portability, and then the resolution just has to be good enough. If we could get a virtual 1080p display that would be amazing and good enough. But to your point, the VR display would probably have to be 4K just to be able to properly represent a 1080p virtual display.

you're not doing the math... this is not meant as a slight but:

how big is your virtual 1080p screen representing? and at what distance. give me those numbers and I can tell you what display tech it needs to be, but it's going to be on the order of 10-20x density. it's all about pixel radians.

Also, 1080 is quite small for reading, macs have retina displays which is nearing print when running anti-aliasing.

And don't think I'm attacking you, I want this too. It's just that I did the math.

I guess I'm ok with a virtual screen taking up most of the view. Of course it would be better if it didn't. But I'd still pay for one where I could pretty much only look at one screen at a time, with enough space around the edges to see if there was another screen to look at. And to avoid eye strain I'd need to not have to focus a few inches away.

So if I could focus like it was 6 feet away but it was big enough it took up most of the screen from that distance, and it had a 1080p resolution, that would be good enough. And then I'd buy the upgrades when they came around :) The rough math I was doing in my head was that anything that wasn't 1:1 would need probably 4 pixels for every one virtual pixel. So 4K would about do it.

I pick 1080p because most laptops today still have that resolution, and several laptops that I still use have less resolution than that and are still usable.

a virtual 1080 display that looks like the real thing would be a big gamechanger. Most companies don't buy 4k displays for their employees because 1080p is generally a lot cheaper and also good enough, even for reading. I still have 2 Dell Ultrasharp 1200p IPS displays at home that are 12 years old but reading/writing text on them is totally fine at the normal viewing distance. I'd want 4K mostly for more real estate.

You can get a 4k tv for like $500 which is several huge res montiors and huge. You could easily sue for that

I just picked up a samsung 40 inch 4k tv to use as a monitor for $275

Sick. What model. How is it?

Just got a $399 50" Samsung TV on BlackFriday. Base on the review, it supports 4:4:4 which is a must as PC monitor. Hook up the one yrs old cheap HP laptop to it via HDMI port.

Looks great! 4k video streaming from Youtube works very good.

4 x 1080 Tiled windows - perfect for productivities.

I don't do gaming. The latency is less of an issue for me.

Now imagine that in your bag, and can be instantly set up in front of you anywhere in VR.

There is a max resolution that people care about, often talked about with 4k TVs. Look at the chart in this example: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

So eventually, we will get there :)

There is also talk about how we actually only mentally process a small focus point in high resolution, and a renderer that could track our focus point could use a lot less GPU compute for a scene if fast enough.

We once had a different max resolution and different max harddrive sizes too. I think we also said only 5 computers total once.

These resolution charts are based on what level of detail humans are able to resolve at what distances, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

This is the entire concept behind 'retina' displays. The max DPI that humans are able to resolve at typical usage distances.