But, the "I don't understand" is strong in this. it doesn't mean "it can't work" but I don't understand how it avoids the problems.
Maybe the size of the computed foveal coverage area is made big enough, to cover the movement? But if you move your eyes suddenly, there's got to be some lag while it computes the missing pixels. So you'd see the same as when Netflix ups the coding rate: crude render becomes clearer. Banded would become smooth transitions.
I don’t have an answer for you, but take some applause from me for spelling this out :)
It’s very difficult for most people to intuitively understand that what they could not figure out after five minutes of thinking might not necessarily be impossible.
As for peripheral vision, any gradation being smooth probably helps, but there might be more tricks to make it look normal. I'm reminded of how jpeg images and some sound codecs only store information that we can actually perceive.
it won't because your eyes literally doesn't have enough sensors in those regions to see it.
Do you know you have a big hole in your vision in each eye where the optic nerve is? It's about half the size of your fist at arm's length, and 35 degrees to the side. Your fovea happens to be roughly the same size. It's the HD part of your retina, and it's where essentially all of your vision happens. It's the only section of the retina that sees color, for instance. The periphery sees motion and that's about it.
Saccades top out at around 700 degrees per second. At 120 frames per second that's only about 6 degrees in either direction. Compared to the FOV, that's tiny. Overfill it!
And then you should notice some movement/rotations. Look around, and find out where that rotation is!