Uh-oh, I think I just figured out the drawing (a short explanation would be nice, or a link to "other thread").
You basically traded 2 polarizing layers for 4!!! Shutter glasses have 2 polarizing layers, so sending them through 4 layers isn't going to decrease ghosting.
Passive polars are going to have better contrast than active at every price point (IE $10 polars are better than $10 glasses, $20 polars are better than $20 glasses, etc. There are some $400+ Shutters that are for projection use, but ouch!).
When I came on the scene ~10 years ago they were called "LCD Shutterglasses", and LCD tech is made from 2 polars and some movable gel/liquid that you can excite electrically.
Your idea is interesting to take software out of the equation (as long as it can offer each eye on a single output). Unfortunately it isn't better than dual passive polarized (it is more like quad active polarized), and costs more to implement.
The only dubious advantage this has it working on surfaces that don't preserve polarization, and since standard shutter projection offers that as well there isn't a benefit.
It was pretty close to working though
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
. It could be made to work with a rotating wheel that shuttered the light mechanically, but it would be a hack (I love hacks, I have hackaday as my homepage
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
, but when researching methods of display for S3D this one doesn't have much more than curiosity value, as a fun thing to do if you have all the parts to play with.)