The following was a really interesting discussion, that I'd love to hear more opinions on:
pedalpete 8 days ago | link
This is really interesting. I wonder if the lines have to be so solid, or if a similar effect could be accomplished without breaking the image so much.
Would a bunch of almost imperceptible lines work? What about a smallish change in colour saturation or similar?
gojomo 8 days ago | link
I was wondering the same thing. Might a finer mesh/grid work? Or bars with some dimensional shading themselves? Or slight transparency?
Could the bars/layer even be animated, along some consistent plane, so that there's no static background part of the scene that's always obscured. (That might allow even thicker bars, if that's otherwise helpful for the plane-of-reference establishing effect, but which aren't as distracting, since the mind's persistence will 'see around' them.)
Combining these, maybe there could be more than one synthetic depth plane active at once, distinguished by color, translucence, or direction-of-motion? There'd be some perceptual dimming with all that layered-in non-native 'depth chrome', a little like looking through lenses or filters... but hey, other stereo 3D tech has similar tradeoffs.
I mean, really, if you want to find weird stuff, and this is pushing your boundaries, don't look too hard.
Maybe if you spelled her name correctly?
I am genuinely baffled by the people who think bubbled pictures are more NSFW than their unbubbled originals.
These style gifs came later (i.e. gifs with 3d effect from the addition of the bars), integrating the white bars that had come to be expected from Tumblr posts.
For example: http://siguealconejoblanco.es/comics/wp-content/uploads/2013...
would like to see how it plays out without the white lines.
Other idea, but gives similar 3d effects
The black and white image of the puppy didn't work for me at all because you could see the "pop" as it suddenly went in front.
Ice-Age and the Avengers clip seemed to stand out much more for me because it was smoother (To my eyes at least).
As was pointed out many times, if you have control over your site, don't use GIFs for video and animation. Use proper video formats (WebM and etc.). It will only save space and loading time and improve quality.
If we just had some sort of file-extension/media-type (.webg, maybe?) that signalled to a browser "I'm a video container, but treat me like a gif, by defaulting to autoplaying, looping, and muting me", we'd replace gifs instantly.
The big advantage of GIF is that it works in an <img> tag just like any other image, so you don't need a website to explicitly support it.
Another advantage, I think, is that GIFs are guaranteed not to play sound, which is great when browsing say imgur.com or pr0gramm.com at work (edit: of well, I had missed the "muting me" part of your comment, so let's just say that we agree that it's an important component).
On the other hand, users don't have to know whether the HTML they are served have <video>s or <img>s, so this could all be done behind the scenes, I guess.
You don't need any special containers. Just use video tag properly, it covers all that functionality since the beginning:
<video src="..." loop="true" autoplay="true" muted="true".../>
Muting can also be simply achieved by making audio empty in the video if you need to.
On sites where you control the HTML, like Wordpress, you can do whatever you like. Use <video> tags if you know them. Likewise, on sites where you don't write HTML (e.g. Facebook, as another poster mentioned), <video> tags are fine--because people don't have to know about them, so it's all just handled in the background when you drop a video on the page.
But there are these in-between web services where HTML is used, usually as one method of several, to get rich text from people, and then presented in an aggregate view (think of any traditional threaded forum.)
Because people can do some pretty nasty things when you inject their HTML directly into your pages, you have to filter that HTML to remove bad behavior. And usually <video> is one of the first to go--not because it's particularly bad (though getting people to autoload huge videos can be used as a DDoS attack in some instances) but because these filters are usually whitelist-based, and haven't been updated since <video> became a thing.
There are services which convert gifs to videos to use the much more efficient encoding: http://gfycat.com/about. So we’ve come full circle once again.
I flinched when I did as Capt. America's shield came flying toward me.
Maybe there is something to this after all.
It would be interesting if this effect was combined with the wiggle 3d effect.
Edit - ah perfect, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249107
I suspect this only "works" if you really want it to.
I didn't understand what the "visual effect" is supposed to be until I read the description.
I still see animated 2D GIFs with bars over them (=no real difference if the bars were removed).