Rob, thanks for the nice idea with the camera setup. I used something similar when I experimented a bit in Vue.

The problem with creating those 20 renders for lenticular images is not how to get those 20 views the easiest way, but the render times. The quality of your lenticular image depends on a lot of factors, such as your printer's physical resolution (DPI), the lenticular sheet's resolution (LPI = lenses per inch on the sheet), your picture's aspect ratio and resolution and so on. There are special formulas on how to determine the amount of views that suits your printer and your lenticular sheet, and ideally you should get full values (10, 11, 12,...20,21 etc.) and not something like 3.768  That means your LPI, printer DPI and picture DPI values should be divisible through each other. Not an easy task.

In other words: You need to render each of your 20 (or whatever) views in resolutions of two megapixels or more. A lenticular sheet pixelates your image additionally, so strong antialiasing in the render settings is definitely a must if you don't want to produce a three dimensional Roman mosaic of your scene ;-).

Also, the parallax between each image has to be absolutely the same with zero tolerance. With keyframe animation the camera's position is interpolated between the first and the last frame, so you can't make sure that the camera get's moved equally from one frame to the other. You have to do this by hand.

Besides, if you use the "track" option when animating your camera circles your tracked object when you move it around. This is indeed one way to create a 3D picture of your scene, but as I explained above this limits your flexibility a lot since your 3D effect is determined while rendering and you can't try out different scene depths in postwork. The effect is also not as natural as you'd like.  The circling method is the so called "Convergence" 3D shooting, the other one is simply "parallel" 3D shooting.