digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at flickr.com —

Every Frame of The Big Lebowski, in one still image (PIC)

flickr.com — Inspired by Cinema Redux, I used Thumber to output this lovely fingerprint of The Big Lebowski. There's a much larger version of this (25 MB or so) that I'm considering making a 24 x 36 poster out of. Would anyone be interested if I do?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • amheidt, on 07/14/2008, -17/+118It would be cooler if the frames were arranged to make an actual picture.
    • luke16, on 07/14/2008, -5/+9Or a GIF. A whole movie in one animated GIF image. Has anyone done that?
    • TheSfid, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1My vote goes to mosaic of the Dude.
      ... or a severed pinky toe.
    • tschau, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5I disagree. We've all seen that trick a million times, and it's old. This lets you see the flow of the movie, watch the color palettes change, and get a good idea what had a lot of screen time and what had very little, among other things.
    • MalachiConstant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7No, look. I do mind. The Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this will not stand, man.
      • scottfarner, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2This aggression will not stand, man.
    • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"It would be cooler if the frames were arranged to make an actual picture."

      http://www.andreaplanet.com/andreamosaic/ for those interested...
      • jsully, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1or apt-get install metapixel
        metapixel-prepare -r srcdir/ destdir/ --width=200 --height=200
        ^ Standardizes the source images to 200x200 pixels.
        metapixel --metapixel targetimage.jpg output.png -l destdir/ --width=200 --height=200
        ^ Does the dirty work and makes the mosaic.
      • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I don't know about you, but ruining the aspect ratio of all the photos sounds like a great way to make a crap mosaic, unless your camera takes square photos...
    • Alexrrr, on 07/14/2008, -2/+0What would be REALLY cool if this could be used in something like Seadragon or PhotoSynth.

      http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/blaise_aguera_y ...

    • ninetimes, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Even cooler if you displayed them sequentially, and had an audio track to go along with it so you could tell what was going on.
    • seran, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Bah! no subtitles.
    • Sunflare670, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2And then put that picture onto a rug. It would really tie the room together.
  • MercFox1, on 07/14/2008, -3/+48If I could make out any of the scenes, I'd yell "Spoiler Alert"...
    • Namco, on 07/14/2008, -1/+15I'd shout "NSFW" for the couple nude scenes if i could make out any bush or nipple.
  • SaintDogbert, on 07/14/2008, -4/+66He fixes the cable?
    • ltkerr0r, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6Don't be fatuous, SaintDogbert
    • MalachiConstant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Little matter to me that this woman chose to pursue a career in pornography, nor that she has been "banging" Jackie Treehorn, to use the parlance of our times.
  • elislider, on 07/14/2008, -1/+379aspect ratio is off, and its definitely not ever frame. more like every 10th frame or something
    i would digg it down for being inaccurate but the concept is cool
    • CedEx, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8I was wondering about that. I can see a scene that is one frame in length in this picture. How would that look on screen? Like a blip?
    • BinaryDelt, on 07/14/2008, -9/+11Well, 29.95 frames/sec NTSC, so if a blip is defined as 1/30th of a second approximately, then yes.
      • BMANZZS, on 07/14/2008, -3/+17No, movies are 24 fps.
      • hmphargh, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9And NTSC is 29.97, not 29.95.
      • trousercustard, on 07/14/2008, -4/+229.97 or 29.95, either way, still seems like good value to me.
      • recruz, on 07/14/2008, -3/+14nerds
      • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+43"29.97 or 29.95, either way, still seems like good value to me."

        ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT DESTROYED THE MARS LANDER!
    • Spire3660, on 07/14/2008, -0/+14Try every 100th frame or more. you COULD figure out the correct ratio of thumbnails to actual frames based on the length of the film, number of thumbs and knowing that film advances 24 FPS
      • giveer, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Very true. There's only 3 frames of the Dude getting a face full of Donnie's ashes (very left, 9 rows up from the bottom).. And I'm pretty sure that gag was longer than 0.125ths of a second.

        But hey, at least I'm housebroken.
      • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Donny was a good bowler, and a good man. He was. . . He was one of us. He was a man who loved the outdoors, and bowling, and as a surfer explored the beaches of southern California from Redondo to Calabassos. And he was an avid bowler. And a good friend. He died--he died as so many of his generation, before his time. In your wisdom you took him, Lord. As you took so many bright flowering young men, at Khe San and Lan Doc and Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And Donny too. Donny who. . . who loved bowling. And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well.

        Goodnight, sweet prince.
    • TheMariner, on 07/14/2008, -0/+13In the flickr comments he mentions working to correct the aspect ratio and that it's not every frame but a frame from every second of the movie
    • merreborn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+80117 minutes * 60 seconds * 24 frames/sec
      = 168,480 frames

      This image: 2000 x 3900 px = 7.8 megapixels

      7800000 / 168480 = 46.3 pixels per original frame. Taking the square root of that, you'd get a 7x7 pixel square of each frame in an image this size.

      So, yeah, this isn't every frame.

      • Goblin, on 07/14/2008, -1/+28I can't work out if that's an awesome way of working it out or the dumbest way compared to counting vertical frames and horizontal frames and getting the product.

        Definite geek point win, though.
      • ZMann, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11Comment dugg up for figuring out the math.
      • JaffaC, on 07/14/2008, -0/+16All I did was look for the frames where Liam does his belly shake. It was only two frames, and since I distinctly remember it lasting longer than a subliminal advertisement, I could only assume that this wasn't every frame. So there, even people who can't math good can figure out that this is *****.
      • Spire3660, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6What is elegant about Merreborn's solution is that he could calculate it without having to manually count anything. He used the available data
      • geodescent, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Okay now let's leave the Slashdot answers to Slashdot plz ;-)
    • legendxx, on 07/14/2008, -0/+16I'll digg it down for you. I'm tired of ***** headlines
    • rdmillar, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3From the Flickr photo page: "Yes, the aspect ratio on the frames is slightly jacked up. That's Thumber's doing, not mine. If I could have kept it at the proper ratio, I seriously would have. Also, some people around the internets seem to think this image consists of every frame of the film. It's actually a frame grab every second — which actually sort of ties the move together if you ask me..."
  • gwydir8, on 07/14/2008, -4/+20Cool, but I still dont know why.
  • kargod, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5I love it. I would definitely buy the poster if the image quality is good.

    • mm3guy, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Though the front page thumbnail makes it look like Firefox f'ed up while loading it...
  • sonar1, on 07/14/2008, -2/+35the dude abides
    • ohnoitstaylor, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8...'The Dude abides.' I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh. I sure hope he makes the finals.
      • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Welp, that about does her, wraps her all up. Things seem to've worked out pretty good for the Dude 'n Walter, and it was a purty good story, dontcha think? Made me laugh to beat the band. Parts, anyway. Course--I didn't like seein' Donny go. But then, happen to know that there's a little Lebowski on the way. I guess that's the way the whole darned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself, down through the generations, westward the wagons, across the sands a time until-- aw, look at me, I'm ramblin' again. Well, uh hope you folks enjoyed yourselves. Catch ya further on down the trail.

        ...Say friend, ya got any more a that good sarsaparilla?...
    • thejamabides, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2The Jam abides.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1----------- see avatar
  • SRSco, on 07/14/2008, -0/+73I remember 1998. When I thought Tara Reid was hot.
  • Rodalli, on 07/14/2008, -3/+237That's not every frame.
    • CanadaMan87, on 07/14/2008, -1/+78It's 161,928 frames short... really, I actually counted.

      Man, I need to get out more often.
      • howdareyou, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5It looks to be about 200 by 60 frames, which is:
        12,000 frames.
        500 seconds.
        8.333 minutes.
      • Corr0sive, on 07/14/2008, -9/+2i hope you just multiplied length and width and not ACTUALLY count every frame...
      • howdareyou, on 07/14/2008, -0/+14From the flickr page:

        "Also, some people around the internets seem to think this image consists of every frame of the film. It's actually a frame grab every second — which actually sort of ties the move together if you ask me..."

        So it's a 24th of the film.
      • abtarhar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Its OVER 9000!
    • DefaultGen, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Corr0sive: Most people on Digg can do basic mathematics.
    • mstachiw, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1first thing i thought too. you can tell right away from the animated opening... 24 frames per second in film not .01
  • jlian, on 07/14/2008, -4/+36What's the point?
    • magstheaxe, on 07/14/2008, -1/+33Maybe it really ties the room together?
      • Goblin, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1You should earn epic number of diggs for that. If you don't then the rest of Digg can hand in their "we love The Big Lebowski" cards.
    • DrunkenSavior, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4Dude, your on the internets....nothing has a point and that's the point [/zen]
      • GRVeee2, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1woah this isnt 4chan alright... we like to have reason on this classy site

        RON PAUL 08!!!!
      • JoshReflek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1i like that candidate but what the ***** are you bringing him up for now......tacky *****.
      • ayeroxor, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1"Dude, your on the internets"

        Where nobody knows the difference between "your" and "you're" and if you do, you're chastised.
    • Gonz037, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8We're talking about unchecked aggression here
    • luke16, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3You could say that about everything.
    • socoolisme, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7There is no point, life is meaningless.
    • Froejam, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah Walter whats your point?
    • bstockwell, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Why do you have to be a ***** nihilist
    • mojoface, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1jlian you are out of of your element
  • bonuscheese, on 07/14/2008, -3/+31Great movie but this is just a little pointless.
  • jondicks, on 07/14/2008, -4/+13I agree - why????
  • kvanderslice, on 07/14/2008, -0/+25You said it man - no one ***** with the Jesus.
  • adamcrigger, on 07/14/2008, -3/+113video 0/10
    audio 0/10
    • thejamabides, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9nerdyguy-
      Is that 0/10 for a cam, or overall?

      aboveeveryoneguy-
      If it's a cam it's 0 - 10 for a cam, if it's a dvdr it's 0 - 10 for a dvdr. Everyone knows this.

      Blowhard69-
      Jesus people, everyone knows this.

      etc.

      :)
    • thejamabides, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2Actually here is an actual excerpt, this crap cracks me up everytime -


      barryblue wrote: I'd give it a 6 or 7 at best. Dark and blurry

      pantzoid wrote: if you find it dark and blurry,you must have a fault cause we just watched this on 50 inch

      barryblue wrote: I don't have a fault and am entitled to post an opinion. If you don't like it ignore it. It's not the worst by far in terms of visual quality but I just wouldn't rate it a 9 for v.

      moron wrote: POST MODERATED

      Sparhawk (Member) wrote: Your trifling argument belongs on a different site. Comment on the release, and the release only! Take that political BS somewhere else.
    • VivaLaUndead, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2you made a torrential funny
  • LordStandley, on 07/14/2008, -2/+38"8 year olds dude"
    • millonzi, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Nobody ***** with the jesus!
    • ophello, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1This is what happens when you ***** a stranger in the ass!
  • spazzx625, on 07/14/2008, -0/+19I'm out of my element...
  • shanomaq, on 07/14/2008, -7/+22COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!1
    • guardsman85, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I was wondering how that picture could be released under a Creative Commons license.
    • fcostta, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I AGREE!! COPYRIGHT INFRIGIMENT!!
      (but... someone have the subtitles???)
  • andy2125, on 07/14/2008, -2/+8Next they'll print it out, slice it up and make a giant flip book.
    • bastardo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4If we could then somehow add SOUND and music to this "Giant Flip Book", we could be onto something!
  • Cyrock, on 07/14/2008, -22/+3BURIED for being overrated movie. why not post Donnie Darko as well?
    • Duositex, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13You accidentally put the y and r after the c
      • IanPR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I swear I read it a good 3 times before I got that you were talking about his name. hehe
    • Caleb83, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2I dugg you for having an unpopular opinion.
    • Userfaulty, on 07/14/2008, -5/+2Donnie Darko sucked. I turned it off and threw it away after wasting half an hour of my life that would have been better spent watching Big Lebowski.
  • bicyclethief, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13Where's the frame with the penis on the notepad?
    • analogkid01, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4The fact that you went looking for it says something.
      • bicyclethief, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it means that gag was funny as hell.
      • bicyclethief, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1So what's your reason for implying homosexuality?
    • Scrappy1850, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2its the note the pornographer makes while taking his "phone call"
    • Froejam, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2About halfway down, about a third from the left. Left you some searching, but I really didn't feel like counting them.
  • lexmichaels, on 07/14/2008, -3/+22Um . . . why?
  • exomni, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5A lot of brown.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -3/+15Somebody has entirely too much time on their hands.
  • AnalogAssassin, on 07/14/2008, -2/+27I bet a rug of that would really tie the room together.
  • DrunkenSavior, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3I'd like to get this framed on my wall (do it OP, let me know when it's done)
    .....it'd really tie the room together.
  • millonzi, on 07/14/2008, -1/+22My advice to you is to do what your parents did! Get a job sir!
  • dreicher, on 07/14/2008, -2/+13860 x 117 = 7020 frames / 30 fps = 234 seconds = 3:54

    I thought the movie was longer somehow.
    • cdoughty77, on 07/14/2008, -9/+3wow you must have been really bored to check that...
      • crizo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7wow you must have believed it was the whole movie.
    • Garlik, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7Is it pathetic that that was the first calculation I did when I saw the picture?
      • Goblin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8I started to do it, then realised someone would have already done it and posted the result in the Digg comments.
    • master_of_fm, on 07/14/2008, -1/+32actually film is 24 frames a second, and technically video is 29.97 frames
    • TreatsTheBear, on 07/14/2008, -0/+77020 frames / 117 minutes (from imdb) = 60 frames/minue = 1 frame/second = every 24th frame.

      Thanks for counting the frames, though.
      • mm3guy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5He didn't count them all, he just counted how long a row and column is and multiplied...
      • ikrit2006, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2O RLY?! I 'ardly _know_ 'er
    • Greengoo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6The author says that it's one frame from every SECOND of the movie.
    • recruz, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3it's the title of the digg article that screwed everyone up
    • AsymptoteDesign, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0lol nice
  • TNicholson, on 07/14/2008, -7/+13Yea! ***** you MPAA!
  • Geek180, on 07/14/2008, -3/+20Buried for being dumb and inaccurate! This isn't every frame!
  • Tallon29, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8The credits were the best part.
  • aurisor, on 07/14/2008, -8/+1That's not every frame of the move. Assuming the movie runs at 30 frames a second (which may be a bit high) the image would have to be about 460x460 frames, when in reality it's about 60x60.

    Still neat though.
  • DannySpace, on 07/14/2008, -1/+23"The Chinaman is not the issue, dude."
    • ltkerr0r, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7"Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."
    • tsf5000, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8"Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature."

      Edit: Damn, I got beat to it. Digg me down if you must.
  • Jiert, on 07/14/2008, -2/+13You have no frame of reference
  • InnerBlueAbyss, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8.....and I thought to myself "Wow that was pointless...."
  • glind, on 07/14/2008, -3/+8i had to to check the comments just to see how many smart asses would say "that's not every frame...buried inaccurate".
  • PhoenixFire7, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9This is definitely not every single frame.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+17So, basically, MBM is proving that he can submit ANYTHING and it would hit the front page.
  • pukiman, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4For what purpose, reason, or cause?
  • otbeverly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+121 frame per second?
  • magneticdozer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13that has to be the biggest waste of time i've ever seen.
  • redrighthand, on 07/14/2008, -9/+4Clearly you are not a bowler-
  • wrecktheplace, on 07/14/2008, -5/+3Isn't really every frame. That's 24 frames per second at 117 minutes. There are not 168,480 frames in this picture. Every 10 or so frames maybe. No penis on the notepad and no topless trampoline lady either. Dugg anyway cuz any movie is better than Logjammin'.
    • Userfaulty, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Trampoline lady is in the Dream Sequence after he floats down the bowling lane ;)
    • swrostmore, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1redacted
    • analogkid01, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The beaver picture?
  • ConfusedCartman, on 07/14/2008, -4/+6No way that's every frame, why isn't this buried as inaccurate?

    Oh, right, the OP.
  • xdevit, on 07/14/2008, -5/+3I see someone getting sued..
  • xombiefarts, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11Dugg for Julianne Moore's boobs.
    • stonebone4, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Everything could use a little more JMB.
  • skyshock1, on 07/14/2008, -4/+3060 frame width x 117 frame height = 7,020 frames in the pic.

    117 minute runtime [1] x 60 seconds in a minute x 24 frames per second = 168,480 total frames in the movie.

    The picture is missing 161,460 frames. Buried for inaccuracy.

    [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/
    • Greengoo, on 07/14/2008, -2/+31 frame from every second of the movie, per the author's note.
      • skyshock1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1That would make sense then. 117 rows high by 60 wide.
    • fmtoffolo, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2oh my.....
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2exactly what I was thinking.
    • DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2well played sir!
  • link2009, on 07/14/2008, -3/+6A new way to pirate movies, NICE!
    • KillsTheWeak, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Ya, you could upload to an image host, and write a program to reassemble the images into the movie.
    • yacks, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1nice way to pirate movies if we were deaf.
  • MadEnvoy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10I see a sailboat.
    • randomguy132, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I wish you said you said schooner so I could whip out a Mallrats quote...
      • Goblin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5A schooner is a sailboat, stupid head.
      • TrevorBelmont, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3A schooner is a sailboat, stupidhead.
      • chrisostermann, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2A schooner is a sailboat, stupid-head
      • Phydu7, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2A schooner is a sailboat, stup-
        dammit
  • Geek180, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9why do people keep assuming the movie runs at 30 fps? What do you think this is a home movie of your family at the beach!? Its a film! 24 fps jeeze.
    • x0mb13, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1werd, just look at any two images next to each other and anyone who has animated anything can tell you its missing many frames, maybe this is supposed to be key frames?
  • bdette, on 07/14/2008, -0/+20HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY!!!!
    • BobOrleans, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8AM I THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO GIVES A ***** ABOUT THE RULES!?!!
      • ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6MARK IT ZERO! YOU THINK I'M ***** AROUND HERE? MARK IT ZERO!!

        This is a league game, Smokey!
      • LowROI, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2They're calling the cops man, put the piece away.
      • DrummerAndrew, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1This is not Nam, there are rules.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.