Autostereoscopic 3d Idea

I was going to save this and try to do it myself but no one reads this anyway.   Basically this is a way of doing 3D which is incredibly simple.   It's basically cheating in a way but it makes sense. I've spent a lot of time trying to think of a way to create 3d images.   The truth is that there are complex ways of doing it and there are simple ways.  The simplest way is to actually make a 3d object.    Many auto-stereoscopic 3 dimensional systems have the problem of depth.  They don't seem to have much depth to them.   The Gameboy with 3d seems to have more depth than most and it uses parallax as opposed to lenticular.    Many 3d screens layer one screen upon another.   Almost all 3d involves layers.   The laying of one image above another.   Or having a picture layer below a lens layer as in lenticular 3d.     It occurred to me if you are going to use layers then the simplest thing to do is use multiple layers to create essentially a bas-relief image.   There is an artist who uses resin to create images this way: Riusuke Fakahori.      Such images would of course be quite bulky if you were trying to depict a landscape this way.    What we are talking about here though is information.   The information of a 3d image could actually be stored in 3d on layers.  The more layers the greater would be the depth resolution.   The eye would see it as 3d yet very shallow 3d yes but almost all 3d is shallow.   If your viewers are willing to put on glasses or wear virtual reality headsets then you can get all the depth resolution you want.    Otherwise by using layers you greatly simplify  the problem of creating a 3 dimensional image.   There are multiple ways of doing it but they are all complicated and seem to have flaws.   What better way to represent a 3 dimensional space than with a 3 dimensional image where everything in the image corresponds to a location in 3d space.    It still has the flaw of the lenticular and the parallax(I'm not sure if parallax has this flaw inherently)  that there is little depth.    By simply putting a magnifying lens in front of it you can remedy this flaw as well.     The magnifying glass doesn't just enlarge things in 2 dimensions.  It also increases the depth.  There is something called a fresnel lens that would allow a thinner lens layer.    It would look like lenticular but with more depth.  Basically the only real problem solved by this method is that of depth.   Since the 3d objects in the image are actually 3 dimensional objects in 3 dimensional space that have sort of been deflated or squashed along the z axis.     There is depth and so this method wouldn't work for books or comic books.  Many paintings though are on canvas and canvas itself has depth.   Also even a flat screen monitor has depth to it.   I think it has enough depth that the system could work for 3d monitors or as a 3dimensional painting.     For the painting you would need a light source.    I think this method is already being used by some companies however they are keeping it secret because it's so simple that they probably were afraid they couldn't patent it and so didn't.

What's good about it is that you could make 3d images or movies that don't require glasses and yet you would still have all the depth of real life or the depth you get when watching a 3d movie shot in 3d.     A Monster would actually appear gigantic.   A hero would appear life size.   Ideally if the quality of the image is good enough it would be like looking through a window on a scene.    One drawback is that just like a window objects would not appear to pop out of the window as they do in 3d movies.   It may be possible though.   I just haven't worked out how it could be done.