I hate being the nay-sayer here, because I'd love cheaper 3D tech, but that paper is pretty lame, IMO.

Their breakthrough, "putting the 3D glasses on the computer!" misses some obvious flaws and a large amount of prior art. The effect they achieve in on par with taping a piece of black cardboard edge-wise down the middle of your screen and sticking your nose against it so one eye sees each half of the screen.

The key to good 3D is yes, to give both eyes different images, but more importantly to do so in the same place (even old stereograms did a split-screen, but used lenses to make the images appear overlapped). There have been lots of parallax barrier approaches that essentially alternate columns of pixels for the left and right eye. Some even use cross polarization, but do so in those stripe patterns, which has its own problems.

So is their method cheap? Yes, if it works. But you might as well render a random dot stereogram and cross your eyes. It's even cheaper. I hope I'm just being a curmugeon, but in this case, I think they've been crossing their eyes too long.

I figured something was stupid about this as soon as I saw the illustration of the NOTEBOOK wearing the 3D glasses -- and it even has ears.

Maybe I'm being dense here, but could you not put two sheets of polarizing material, one on each half placed with orthogonal polarization directions, on a conventional monitor and achieve the same effect?

But, yeah, it looks like they're still just giving you a slightly easier way to cross-eyed free view a stereo pair.

Saran Wrap won't work; cellophane is of an entirely different, pseudocrystalline, structure.

Cellophane, tinted red and green is used in the classic 3-D glasses intended for printed material where images are printed twice, slightly offset, in red and green hues.