This might be a stupid idea, but without a microscope, it seems feasible, imagine having two cameras recording, and on your screen at home we alternate between the cameras every frame to make 3D video, this is almost what’s already happening in our eyes so why not in media?
EDIT: I think I phrased myself poorly, I don’t mean a screen that sends two images or why cameras are this and that, I mean footage that gives one frame from one camera, and the next frame from the second camera, alternating back and forth to make our eyes mens it together into a 3D picture
In: 0
It was done on some 3D TVs and 3D games/monitors
They had expensive active glasses that blocked the view from one eye then the other. It requires the source support double the frame rate(120 fps to see 60 fps)
Turns out 3D content didn’t take off for home use. The required equipment was too expensive (new high end TVs) and the media available was limited, gimmicky, and didn’t expand because not many people got the TVs
The overall cheaper option is definitely polarization which is what they do in movie theaters there days. It makes the screen more expensive but does come with super expensive glasses
Latest Answers