I have difficulties understanding the mecanism of this supersampling (2 succesive images to make one ?). Can anyone explain this in a simple way ?
Since they're using off-the-shelf LCD displays for their prototype, I guess the final result is not yet flicker-free (they probably cannot show more than 60 fps, and thus not more than 15–30 high-resolution frames per second). Also evident as they're demonstrating the capabilities with 5- and 10-fps video. But that's just a matter of a higher refresh rate for the displays, I guess, unless computing the individual frames is too taxing for now (it doesn't seem to be, they do plenty of work in shaders, being NVidia and all).
Major benefits seem to be cost, simplicity and size; their prototypes were built as a head-mounted display and a small projector.
"The bare liquid crystal panel was affixed to the base plate, held in direct contact with the first LCD at a fixed lateral offset. As assembled, the front polarizer on the bottom LCD is crossed with the rear polarizer on the top LCD. Rather than remove the polarizers from the thin glass panels, we placed quarter-wave retarder film between the two (American Polarizers APQW92-004-PC-140NMHE): rotating the polarization state to restore the operation of the top LCD."
It's probably extremely basic knowledge for people familiar with polarization, but I didn't know it could be so simple.
Sounds like there are issues with parallax. Both head-mount and projectors have the benefit of a fixed viewer (or light-source, same thing) relative to the display. LCDs have depth, and at any other angle your offset is ruined. The tech is not likely coming to a desktop or laptop monitor any time soon.
Of course you can probably get around this. The two most obvious solutions being face tracking or paper-thin LCDs.
The rest is math.
So, two panels can produce 4X the resolution, using only static images. But I'm guessing they'd have to sacrifice some bits in the luminosity domain to make it work.