digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
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?

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 14, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

311 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • elislider, on 07/14/2008, -1/+380aspect 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
  • Rodalli, on 07/14/2008, -3/+236That's not every frame.
  • dreicher, on 07/14/2008, -2/+13860 x 117 = 7020 frames / 30 fps = 234 seconds = 3:54

    I thought the movie was longer somehow.
  • adamcrigger, on 07/14/2008, -3/+113video 0/10
    audio 0/10
  • amheidt, on 07/14/2008, -17/+119It would be cooler if the frames were arranged to make an actual picture.
  • merreborn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+81117 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.

  • BattleScars, on 07/14/2008, -2/+80A series of rapidly changing frames that make a moving image is called a film.
  • CanadaMan87, on 07/14/2008, -1/+78It's 161,928 frames short... really, I actually counted.

    Man, I need to get out more often.
  • SRSco, on 07/14/2008, -0/+74I remember 1998. When I thought Tara Reid was hot.
  • SaintDogbert, on 07/14/2008, -4/+68He fixes the cable?
  • MercFox1, on 07/14/2008, -3/+49If I could make out any of the scenes, I'd yell "Spoiler Alert"...
  • 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!
  • LordStandley, on 07/14/2008, -2/+38"8 year olds dude"
  • sonar1, on 07/14/2008, -2/+35the dude abides
  • magstheaxe, on 07/14/2008, -1/+33Maybe it really ties the room together?
  • jlian, on 07/14/2008, -4/+36What's the point?
  • master_of_fm, on 07/14/2008, -1/+32actually film is 24 frames a second, and technically video is 29.97 frames
  • bonuscheese, on 07/14/2008, -3/+31Great movie but this is just a little pointless.
  • StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -1/+29I 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.
  • 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/
  • AnalogAssassin, on 07/14/2008, -2/+27I bet a rug of that would really tie the room together.
  • kvanderslice, on 07/14/2008, -0/+25You said it man - no one ***** with the Jesus.
  • inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+23wtf happened? falcon punch?
  • DannySpace, on 07/14/2008, -1/+23"The Chinaman is not the issue, dude."
  • millonzi, on 07/14/2008, -1/+22My advice to you is to do what your parents did! Get a job sir!
  • bdette, on 07/14/2008, -0/+20HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY!!!!
  • sexybobo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+20http://www.geekstir.com/img/starwars1.gif
    http://www.geekstir.com/img/starwars2.gif
    http://www.geekstir.com/img/starwars3.gif
    First three star wars movies in a gif (original trilogy)
  • lexmichaels, on 07/14/2008, -3/+22Um . . . why?
  • fant0m, on 07/14/2008, -0/+19Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
  • spazzx625, on 07/14/2008, -0/+19I'm out of my element...
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+17So, basically, MBM is proving that he can submit ANYTHING and it would hit the front page.
  • Geek180, on 07/14/2008, -4/+20Buried for being dumb and inaccurate! This isn't every frame!
  • gwydir8, on 07/14/2008, -4/+20Cool, but I still dont know why.
  • 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 *****.
  • legendxx, on 07/14/2008, -0/+16I'll digg it down for you. I'm tired of ***** headlines
  • shanomaq, on 07/14/2008, -7/+22COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!1
  • TheWorm, on 07/14/2008, -0/+14Then this happened
    http://thesuperficial.com/2007/07/tara-reid-bikini ...
  • BMANZZS, on 07/14/2008, -3/+17No, movies are 24 fps.
  • 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.
  • Namco, on 07/14/2008, -1/+15I'd shout "NSFW" for the couple nude scenes if i could make out any bush or nipple.
  • 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
  • bicyclethief, on 07/14/2008, -1/+14Where's the frame with the penis on the notepad?
  • 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
  • magneticdozer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13that has to be the biggest waste of time i've ever seen.
  • inactive, on 07/14/2008, -3/+15Somebody has entirely too much time on their hands.
  • xombiefarts, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11Dugg for Julianne Moore's boobs.
  • ZMann, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11Comment dugg up for figuring out the math.
  • otbeverly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+121 frame per second?
  • Jiert, on 07/14/2008, -2/+13You have no frame of reference
  • xombiefarts, on 07/14/2008, -3/+14apparently diggers are too good for Tara Reid these days. who knew?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 314 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.