That would be what is required for an ideal display. Current VR displays get closer to 0.1 degrees per pixel so it would be a ~3x improvement to be competitive with existing tech, as I said.
No, I'm talking about what is required to get to the same as current VR. Beamwidth and pixels per degree are NOT equivalent. Beamwidth causes adjacent pixels to blur into each other, which is a much bigger issue when projecting onto the eye because it's such a smaller surface. The equivalent factor for a display would be the diffraction blur introduced by a pixel.
Back of the envelope math: at 10 pixels per mm, 500 nm light through a circular aperture[1] has a half-power beamwidth of .0013 degrees, so two orders of magnitude better than this technology. That is what you'd need for an ideal display. The bare minimum is just that the blurring at the retina does not cause pixels three rows over to bleed into each other.
Back of the envelope math: at 10 pixels per mm, 500 nm light through a circular aperture[1] has a half-power beamwidth of .0013 degrees, so two orders of magnitude better than this technology. That is what you'd need for an ideal display. The bare minimum is just that the blurring at the retina does not cause pixels three rows over to bleed into each other.
[1]: https://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/2DApertures.html