Should a static background be enough on its own to count as a variant set?

Example: pool #26766
Variant sets are supposed to have minor differences from the other images in the set. Normally, the differences would occur mainly with the character's expression and clothing with only a small amount of actual movement, if any. However, in sets like the example, the viewing angle is constant, but the characters are moving to various places in the room.

I understand the reasoning behind tagging these variant set, but the differences among the images seem more significant than what one would normally expect from them. I do think it would be still useful to tag them, so maybe we should make a new tag specifically for sets in which only the background doesn't move ((static pov, constant pov, etc.). Not sure if we should also tag them with variant set or not.

FWIW, Sadpanda has a tag for this "security camera/voyeurism" type of fixed perspective called multipanel sequence
They also explicitly separate this from their version of variant set because it can also be applied on a comic where only a few pages have these kind of perspectives.

I have no preference on whether it should or shouldn't be a subset of variant set, or something else entirely, but I support having a tag like this.

Blank_User said:

I understand the reasoning behind tagging these variant set, but the differences among the images seem more significant than what one would normally expect from them. I do think it would be still useful to tag them, so maybe we should make a new tag specifically for sets in which only the background doesn't move ((static pov, constant pov, etc.). Not sure if we should also tag them with variant set or not.

We do have fixed-point camera and time lapse