The tag implication #42920 frame_by_frame -> animated has been approved.

Reason: self-explanatory

EDIT: The tag implication frame_by_frame -> animated (forum #323969) has been approved by @Millcore.

-1. Not as "Self-explanatory" as you think.
post #3072859
It could be a slideshow instead, which isn't considered animated.

furrin_gok said:
-1. Not as "Self-explanatory" as you think.
post #3072859
It could be a slideshow instead, which isn't considered animated.

That counts:

animated
The rapid display of a sequence of images of 2-D or 3-D artwork or model positions in order to create an illusion of movement.

It's 3 frames, but it's a sequence of images meant to create the illusion of movement. It's a low frame rate animation.

The whole 'slideshow is not animation' concept isn't very stable either, considering gif/animated_gif (which can be used for slideshows) are aliased to animated, and animated_png (apng), short_playtime, and long_playtime (which can also be for slideshows), implicate animated. webm used to implicate animated, but that was removed when someone complained despite the other formats and related tags still implicating it.

More on point, frame_by_frame is an animation technique used to create the illusion of movement via individually drawn frames, compared to motion tweening with the illusion is created via moving and warping elements of the image. If frame-by-frame could refer to a slideshow, then all slideshows would inherently be frame-by-frame since slideshows are composed of distinctly separate frames shown one after another (just lacking the whole illusion-of-movement thing).

watsit said:
That counts:
It's 3 frames, but it's a sequence of images meant to create the illusion of movement. It's a low frame rate animation.

The whole 'slideshow is not animation' concept isn't very stable either, considering gif/animated_gif (which can be used for slideshows) are aliased to animated, and animated_png (apng), short_playtime, and long_playtime (which can also be for slideshows), implicate animated. webm used to implicate animated, but that was removed when someone complained despite the other formats and related tags still implicating it.

More on point, frame_by_frame is an animation technique used to create the illusion of movement via individually drawn frames, compared to motion tweening with the illusion is created via moving and warping elements of the image. If frame-by-frame could refer to a slideshow, then all slideshows would inherently be frame-by-frame since slideshows are composed of distinctly separate frames shown one after another (just lacking the whole illusion-of-movement thing).

Those aliases and implications might need to be removed then. That image is not animated. The character's arms are down, then they're up. It doesn't even look like the arms are moving, aside from there being motion lines. Motion lines do not imply animated, because they are not an animation.

furrin_gok said:
Those aliases and implications might need to be removed then. That image is not animated. The character's arms are down, then they're up. It doesn't even look like the arms are moving, aside from there being motion lines. Motion lines do not imply animated, because they are not an animation.

I don't see any harm in considering slideshows a subset of animations. If slideshow were implicated to animated, would it be significantly more difficult to search for animations that aren't slideshows? There are various useful and valid (from my point of view) aliases and implications that cannot be created if and only if we consider this specific definition to be the correct one.

gattonero2001 said:
I don't see any harm in considering slideshows a subset of animations. If slideshow were implicated to animated, would it be significantly more difficult to search for animations that aren't slideshows? There are various useful and valid (from my point of view) aliases and implications that cannot be created if and only if we consider this specific definition to be the correct one.

You're thinking of it the wrong way around--It would become difficult to find images that are animated but include a slideshow in them.

furrin_gok said:
That image is not animated. The character's arms are down, then they're up. It doesn't even look like the arms are moving

It doesn't? The character is standing there with their arms in a down position, then the same character is standing there in the same pose but with one arm in an up position, which then returns to a down position, then the other arm in an up position, followed by returning to the down position again. That's a rather typical key frame animation of a character raising and lowering their arms. Just because it didn't fill in an undefined number of positions in between the key frames doesn't mean it's not depicting a character moving their arms. It's not like the images are completely disjointed in a slideshow format, (e.g. different characters, viewing angles, or whatever), it's same character from the same angle in the same pose, except for the moved arms. That is very much giving an illusion of movement.

Of course, this also goes to show the line between "animated" and "slideshow" is quite blurry. But to me, that post is 100% unambiguously animated, regardless of being 6 fps.

I'm with furrin gok. I originally upvoted because I didn't realize that frame_by_frame technically applies to some slideshows.

IMO, there should be at least two "animated" type tags: An umbrella tag covering every kind of non-static image and a subtag of that for images that have true "illusion of movement". I agree that post #3072859 is animated in the non-tag sense of the word, and depicts movement, but to me, the illusion of movement is at least 12 fps or so. Unfortunately, the cutoff point for that is kind of subjective...

I wonder if we should have a bot that tags fps? Obviously, it wouldn't be equivalent to "illusion of movement", since some meme videos just have image spam, but it would at least be objective, and people could choose their own cutoff point.

matrixmash said:
I'm with furrin gok. I originally upvoted because I didn't realize that frame_by_frame technically applies to some slideshows.

In as much as all slideshows are technically frame-by-frame, since they by definition are a series of disjointed frames not creating the illusion of movement. But the purpose of the frame_by_frame tag is to help find animations that are dawn individually frame-by-frame instead of motion warping or tweening. Counting slideshows (that don't show movement) as frame-by-frame ruins its purpose.

matrixmash said:
IMO, there should be at least two "animated" type tags: An umbrella tag covering every kind of non-static image and a subtag of that for images that have true "illusion of movement". I agree that post #3072859 is animated in the non-tag sense of the word, and depicts movement, but to me, the illusion of movement is at least 12 fps or so. Unfortunately, the cutoff point for that is kind of subjective...

Note that it's "the illusion of movement" not "realistic or smooth movement". If you can look at a series of images in sequence and your brain constructs the idea of a character moving around, that's the illusion of movement. It creates the illusion that something moved, even though it's technically just a series of still images, and post #3072859 very much does that for me.

Don't forget we also have tags like 2_frame_animation, with beauties like
post #2616779

Even less frame rate than the previous (about 2 or 3 fps, instead of 6 or 7), less frames (2 instead of 3), and just as much movement (wings in an up position, swapped to a down position), but to call that a slideshow is very inaccurate. It's clearly portraying the movement of birds flapping their wings, which is used as a silhouette containing a still image, overlaid on a still background.

matrixmash said:
I wonder if we should have a bot that tags fps? Obviously, it wouldn't be equivalent to "illusion of movement", since some meme videos just have image spam, but it would at least be objective, and people could choose their own cutoff point.

The fps of the source and the number of distinct visual frames aren't always the same. A 30 fps video can contain images that only change at 10, 15, 20, etc, fps. The frequency of the distinct visual frames doesn't have to be constant either, a GIF can be set to 15 fps, and have some images appear as 1 fps with others at the full 15, with some more falling somewhere in between.

furrin_gok said:
You're thinking of it the wrong way around--It would become difficult to find images that are animated but include a slideshow in them.

In that case, it would be much easier to just create a new tag for that specific (and very uncommon) situation. animated slideshow returns only 5 pages of results, though it appears that most of them would be considered mistags if we assume that slideshows and animations are entirely separate concepts.

If you seriously want to argue that there is no objective boundary defining the "illusion of movement", then why not go the whole way and alias slideshow to animated? Otherwise objections to this alias are specious at best.

The tag implication frame_by_frame -> animated (forum #323969) has been approved by @Millcore.