Animation.

Skipping a few frames is the least of my concern.

Photoshop's restriction of 1000 frames is why I limit it to 2 frames. If more, the animation seems to go a lot quicker than it should. If set at 1, it animation actually seems slower than it should be, so 2 seems to be perfect for both the speed and the restrictions (except for animations lasting over 1000 frames, even with set at every 2 frames, which have a bit more work).

It also sets a more reasonable size for the gif, rather than 2 times what it would be (averaging about >4mb, rather than ~2mb)

Manually deleting the duplicated and unnecessary frames greatly decreases the file's size, and so far in my practicing, shows more accuracy than automatically deleting every second frame.

Of course, that holds a lot more work than simply having the computer do it. Moreover, I notice that your Idle Pose .gifs have a huge number of frames, which I assume is by effect of the 500~1,000 Frame videos (or from being a higher quality[?]); if done manually, "unnecessary" translates to "A few pixels moved that isn't discerning to the human eye".

With that, it's more like x1.3~x1.5~x1.8 rather than x2. If you could show a sample of one of the (unedited) pose video files I would like to see how it is myself to more fully understand.

If you were to manually delete "unnecessary" frames where the gaps are not even, you'd be altering the speed of the animation.

Say you had this set up:

Frame1 Frame1 Frame1 Frame1 Frame2 Frame2

• You may assume Frame1 are either exact same frames or few pixel changes.

If you were to delete 3 of the Frame1's and 1 of the Frame2's, you'd be essentially tripling the animation speed (6 frames -> 2 frames; assuming you have already imported with every2frames).

As for the number of frames, the longer the animation is, the more frames will be required in order to capture the entire animations. I'm not sure what else to add here. Also, if you alter the duration of the frame, it will be slower than it should, in turn creating a longer animation with less frames, but inaccurate in terms of the actual animation speed, especially in photoshop (by default, frame durations show as 0.2seconds, but is not 0.2seconds).

Which is where changing the "Time" of each frame takes place. Say if an animation were to have exactly twice the frames, thus half of them are deleted for being duplicates. If the original Time of each frame was .02 seconds, the new time would be .04 seconds.

More or less looking at the actual video, taking note of how much time one loop takes to complete, then filling in the most accurate Time for each frame.

Beat me to the edit: (finding it better to be a bit too fast than a bit too slow, such as if the actual Time-per-frame was .036, .03 would be better than .04)

Which would be a hell of a lot more tedious than it needs to be...

Trading off half a megabyte worth of data for about tripling the amount of work required to create the animation... sounds worth it.

I can do it. Practice, after all, makes humanly perfect.

Then it is. May you upload/link to a base video with these pose specifications? I wish to try it out myself.

That would take me a while to upload; even after cropping out most of the video, the file is still nearly 300mb. And my internet's upload speed is the crappiest there will ever be, yet still eats up my bandwidth.

How long is the video, and for which animation?

In the mean time: It's awfully late for America-based users to be on the wiki right now.

12 seconds. shamala male animation (without the ends cut off)

It's only 11:22 in the west coast...