Let's assume a version 6 QR code, which is 41x41 (larger is unreasonable IMO). Now let's assume that using triangles is a twice as dense packing, and we use 8 colors. Also we don't need error correction.
Then we have 3x41x41x2/8 = 1260 bytes of storage. Even with compression that's still not a decent sized book.
---
EDIT: I'm guilty of not reading the article first. I assume now you meant a 'QR film' that you scan for a couple seconds, rather than a static image. In that case you can apply above calculation to '1260 bytes per frame', at 10FPS that'd be 100Kbps, which is reasonable.
Not a film, something printable, that lasts without battery or can be put on a poster at a protest. At 3kB/in^2 in a 3x3 grid of barcodes you'd scan left-to-right, top-to-bottom, if the text itself were compressed with PPMd down to 25% of its original size, that 3x3 barcode grid gives you 108kB of text
or 12kB in a single barcode (of plain text, compressed down to 3)
wikipedia says: "Microsoft claims that laboratory tests using standard off-the-shelf printers and scanners have yielded readable eight-color HCCBs equivalent to approximately 3,500 characters per square inch"
I've read about this a bit and I really wish there were an unpatented color barcode and a reliable/fast open source reader also, even if it's not quite as dense as my dreams. I think it would make for some neat possibilities.
Then we have 3x41x41x2/8 = 1260 bytes of storage. Even with compression that's still not a decent sized book.
---
EDIT: I'm guilty of not reading the article first. I assume now you meant a 'QR film' that you scan for a couple seconds, rather than a static image. In that case you can apply above calculation to '1260 bytes per frame', at 10FPS that'd be 100Kbps, which is reasonable.