Not with the polarized coating, you'd get a flash of the image. And at 60 revolutions per second, it'd actually look decent.
Of course, you've got the problem of the big noisy motor spinning around these heavy delicate screens, and what happens when a fastener inevitably gets loose.
And it's just an impractical idea all around. I mean, what'd it be good for? Anything you'd need to see from all sides that way you could do a hundred times better and cheaper with an actual physical model or the thing itself, and it wouldn't look high-tech or anything, it'd look like ass. Never mind that, like I said before, it's not like such a design is exactly stable.
The whole thing's really kinda stupid, basically fishing for misleading headlines. It'd be one thing if it was at least some clever new application of old technology, but this is an application of old technology that wouldn't have been impressive sixty years ago.
Actually, the UV-reactive cylinder would probably be closer to a genuinely useable 3D display. That's basically the same principle as a cathode ray tube is based on, after all, and while you'd definitely need something less likely to be in the ambient atmosphere (and hence mess everything up) than UV light, if you worked out a way to basically have many many layers of three types of ultrathin film, each reacting to a different wavelength or something and in one of the three base colors, and then the emitters at a perpindicular... well, it'd be 180* accurate. Throw in a sheet of some transparent material impermeable to whatever waves you're using to trigger the reaction (which actually would probably be the hard part to find) and a similar emitter on the other side, and you've got the full deal.
None of this is exactly rocket science, there are plenty of thoroughly workable theories on holography and so on like the one I just made up there. The problem isn't the concept at all, it's the implementation.
