post #9000000 GET!
Donmai

Screenshots and Flagging

Posted under General

What is the deal with the mass flagging of screencaps? I'm seeing it all the time in the mod queue, mostly for images that either look fine to me, or are at least well above the threshold where flagging seems appropriate. Looking at the last year alone, it seems almost fully 80% of screenshots posted have either been flagged or deleted, many also being down-voted or rejected for "breaks the rules" or "poor quality" for no real apparent reason (comparing to other uploads of similar apparant quality that regularly get past the queue). If you include posts older than one year the number of screenshots rejected is a bit less than 50% (even after tons of ancient screencaps keep getting dredged into the queue and rejected as well, pushing this number up. That seems to indicate a fairly recent and fairly large change in our reaction to them.

Even if a screencap gets past the queue, it seems a few members are methodically going through and flagging just about all of them for "Stitched screenshot of below average quality." or "Very bad quality screencap." or something somewhat hyperbolic along those lines. Sometimes the reason is simply "screencap" which is completely invalid as a flagging reason. I'm not going to defend every screencap, many are aren't too great, and most are below my approval threshold. Also except to say that many weren't that bad for the time, ancient 12 year old postage stamped sized screenshots are kind of hard to defend. On the other hand though, I'd say the majority of what gets flagged and pushed back through the queue, doesn't really feel like it deserves to be there.

I'll admit to not having been active in the forums for the last few years, but after a quick search, I don't see anywhere policy was changed with regards to screenshots. In the wiki, aside for a few late additions by some of the same people doing the flagging asking for an image's complete pedigree, things seem the same as I remember them, as well. There is nothing on howto:upload warning against or discouraging screencaps,help:third-party edit still says that stitched images (which are primarily screencaps) are "generally accepted", contrary to what appears to be the current reality. I'd argue that stitches, moreso than straight screencaps are beneficial in that they provide full access to a view that isn't easily available even from the source material.

I guess I'm asking for some clarity here on policy. Have we changed our official stance on screencaps? As things are it seems silly to try and approve them knowing they'll be flagged again anyway. In what matter are screenshots on the whole poor quality? Are we setting a different bar for them compared to other images? Are a few users simply targeting a few users who happen to post them? If we are in practice changing our policy (and come to a consensus on that), the wiki and howto pages ought to be modified to reflect this. If we aren't, we ought to change our feedback and flagging to reflect policy.

A few examples of flagged and deleted images that don't feel like they warranted flagging or deleting:

Updated

I'd be one to say that I'm pretty against screencaps that are just a capture of a frame - but very much in favor of higher-quality stitched panning shots that wouldn't have been viewable in their parent show's run.
I don't think there's been any change in policy, but the overall mood for users of the site is that screencaps aren't what they come to see.

I don't think screencaps are Danbooru material in general. Danbooru's primary focus is original fanart. I don't think screencaps fit in with that.

I don't think this is really a new attitude either. Even ten years ago I don't think screencaps were looked on favorably. The deletion rate was high even then, even excluding flagged posts:

It's even worse when you exclude posts that bypassed the queue and consider only manually approved posts:

One issue is that screencaps very often have quality problems: low quality original sources, low resolution, blurriness, jpeg artifacts, bad cropping, etc.

But beyond quality issues, I think the content itself is usually nothing special. More often than not they're just boring stills, or dime-a-dozen fanservice shots, or the kind of random gifs that would be more suitable on traditional imageboards. Frankly I think the posts you listed are perfect examples of screencaps that are completely unremarkable.

Problem is that most of those stitches are made using horriblesubs rips, which are complete crap in terms of artifacting. People don't even bother using the bluray versions, because they're images meant to be shared on imageboards like 4chan at the moment of the airing of the show - very rarely do people go back and restitch long or tall shots once a series has completed. You can tell a screenshot is of that kind usually when it's of an airing anime and it has a width of 1280.

People who upload screenshots typically find them on rehosting sites that do their own compression, too. I'm not sure we're losing anything of quality.

As many have mentioned, the uploads tagged under screencaps are rife with artifacts and poor quality, and are notorious for being sourced very poorly, typically not even at all.

The main problem appears to be that uploaders are not the ones making these images; they find them off of Google Images, a forum, an image board, and various other third parties. Those third parties don't provide any information on how an image is made, and don't emphasize including sources or maintaining source integrity, ie using the most favorable version of an image without changes to composition. Someone who uploads screencaps should have to provide information such as the source material (Whether it's the Blu-ray version, a web-rip, ripped off Japanese television, etc), the original resolution, the episode and time stamp. And that would be for each material used. And if something is a composition sitching different sources together, be they screencaps or other sources, we should know all those sources. Providing sourceless screencaps isn't acceptable nor is to link to any number of "hd anime wallpaper/whatever"-style third parties.

I definitely think there should be a wiki explaining in detail how uploaders should handle screencaps, with emphasis of replicability and source integrity, and that should be linked to from the upload page. Generally though I agree with others that screencaps very rarely contribute anything, and nothing in your list is an exception. I agree with Elfaleon that where a stitched screencap is most useful with a picture you wouldn't be able to see in the original media. Say for example post #2963166, where a user very cleverly elucidated the true image using different screenshots of a game.

chinatsu said:

As many have mentioned, the uploads tagged under screencaps are rife with artifacts

Yeah, this in particular really irritates me about some of the screencap uploads, as the artifacts are completely unnecessary. They could have been saved as PNG in the first place. post #3231582 and post #3246755 were ones I would have approved if they had not been artifacted so heavily.

Updated

EB said:

Yeah, this in particular really irritates me about some of the screencap uploads, as the artifacts are completely unnecessary. They could have been saved as PNG in the first place. post #3231582 and post #3246755 were ones I would have approved if they had not been artifacted so heavily.

Saving as png makes no difference, they're from horriblesubs' crunchyroll rips or from similar services. The artifacting is inherent to them.

nonamethanks said:

Saving as png makes no difference, they're from horriblesubs' crunchyroll rips or from similar services. The artifacting is inherent to them.

Not saying they would be artifact-free, but definitely would not be as heavily artifacted as the examples pointed out here. Those had to have been lossily resaved.

Ok, the artifact argument makes sense (though I don't think it really affected acceptance rates much in the past, as I'm sure the majority of caps then and now were from fansubs, as you point out). Additionally I didn't really notice them in the case of my recent screencap approvals, as I have a script to adjust images to screen height (to allow myself to see everything in one go), so they weren't particularly obvious at that zoom level, and as such not bothersome to me when I approved them. I also think things like "nightlight" or f.lux tend to make artifacts less obvious.

I'll hold off from approving screencaps in the future unless they are particularly artifact free (and of course I like the content and think it'd be a decent addition to the site). If people notice particularly bad artifacting in pending posts, feel free to add jpeg_artifacts as a red flag to those in the queue.

If the animator who drew it is known (and checking in this case, they are credited), then it is fine for official art to have an artist tag. Though looks like what happened there is a case of someone uploading something that wasn't their own art to Pixiv, and yeah, artist tags like that should definitely be removed.

1