6 ms·
The 1,000-Year GIF
- julianwachholz 11y agoThe real question is: How large is the file and where can I download it or the script to make it?
- BillinghamJ 11y agoWhile I'm not exactly sure as to the answer, I have some info which would be helpful towards answering it. The file contains 48,140,288 frames. There are only two colors - white and black. Only the very center of the image (where the number is) needs to be updated for each frame. This area is 400x65 pixels, so up to 26,000 pixels could be updated on each frame, minus the space between the numbers, etc., so I'd guesstimate an average of 10,000 pixels changing each frame. Each of those 10,000 pixels can actually only be one of two values, but each occupies exactly one byte when uncompressed. So uncompressed (which GIFs normally are not), it'd be about 481,402,880,000 bytes (~0.5TB), plus the full first frame. However, GIFs use LZW compression. While I do not know a lot about it, I would guess it would probably do quite well in this case. Perfect 100% compression would mean 1 bit per pixel rather than 8. But let's assume LZW would only manage - say - 2 bits per pixel. That'd quarter the total size, making the total about 120GB. Of course, this all assumes that it is actually a single GIF, which I believe is extraordinarily unlikely. I would expect it's actually rendered on the fly. Edit: I'm also assuming that the overall image is actually 1280x960 as the image in the article suggests.
- ghshephard 11y agoI don't know about your compression numbers. I just created a 1000x1000 pixel gif with a number 1 in the middle, and it compressed to 4790 bytes equals 38320 bits. So, 1,000,000 pixels divided by 38320 bits means 26 pixels per bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF suggests that long runs of a single color compress rather well.
- StavrosK 11y agoWhy would perfect compression mean 77.5% reduction? I've seen GIFs compressed 90%+.
- hultner 11y agoConsidering that the numbers look very pixelated we could probably reproduce the same result with a 7x7 pixel grid for each number (29 pixels for an full 8), after that we could just scale up the image to 1280x960 using a cheap nearest neighbour algorithm. That way we could probably get away with a lot less. Even rendering a full 88,888,888 could be done with 232 pixels then.
- gpvos 11y agoCompression can do much better than 1 bit per pixel. As a quick test, I just created a 1000x1000 single-colour GIF, which takes 1735 bytes.
- BillinghamJ 11y agoIndeed, but that is single color. GIFs contain the differences between each frame - not a whole frame each time. I was assuming 10,000 (of the ~1 million total) pixels were actually changing, and must be changed to one of two values - thus "perfect" compression for a single pixel would be 1 bit.
- gpvos 11y ago> "perfect" compression for a single pixel would be 1 bit I still don't see how that is a valid conclusion that follows from what you wrote before it. It is an optimal representation of the data before you would apply any form of compression.
- kalleboo 11y ago> Only the very center of the image (where the number is) needs to be updated for each frame For most frames, only the final digit needs to be updated (or the final two digits, etc)
- shubhamjain 11y agoApparently, if you aim to serve the GIF over the internet, you can absolutely avoid creating the file at all. GIFs don't declare how many frames the file has, so the browser will keep loading GIF frames unless you declare that there are no more frames. People have exploited this to create a hackish one-way websocket [1]. [1]: https://github.com/videlalvaro/gifsockets https://github.com/videlalvaro/gifsockets
- pluma 11y agoI'm pretty sure people have exploited this in the 1990s to create a hackish webcam (a camera recording each frame as gif and the server "streaming" the individual gif frames as they come in).
- dag11 11y agoYou don't have to hack gifs to do this. The ability to indefinitely stream frames of an image (of any format) is part of HTTP. I made a live png view counter for funsies with this idea: http://drewgottlieb.net/2012/07/29/real-time-user-count.html http://drewgottlieb.net/2012/07/29/real-time-user-count.html
- ayosec 11y ago12G, according to a [1]picture in the post 1. http://hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ASLAP-one.jpg http://hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ASLAP-on...
- andyjohnson0 11y agoThe mention of Cage's As Slow as Possible reminded me of Long Player [1] - another similar project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longplayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longplayer
- Zelmor 11y agoAt the least it could have cats.
- erre 11y agoThis reminds me of "Machine with Concrete", by Arthur Ganson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q-BH-tvxEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q-BH-tvxEg From the video description: Each worm/worm gear pair reduces the speed of the motor by 1/50th. Since there are 12 pairs of gears, the final speed reduction is calculated by (1/50)12. The implications are quite large. With the motor turning around 200 revolutions per minute, it will take well over two trillion years before the final gear makes but one turn. Given the truth of this situation, it is possible to do anything at all with the final gear, even embed it in concrete.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rrauenza 11y agoYou can see it at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
- ewindisch 11y agoFranklin Institute in Philadelphia has a similar gear reduction setup attached to a hand crank on one side and a metal trash can within a vice on the other side. Children (and adults) are invited to crank the handle and turn the gears. It takes months to crush each can which is then replaced.
- jkot 11y agoSo basically it is animated GIF counter. I am not sure if its a spoof or serious art.
- TearsInTheRain 11y agoI feel like the artists think it is serious art
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoAgreed. Why not an animated clock? Or some progressive image like Towers of Hanoi being played? Or something, oh, artistic?
- coldtea 11y ago>Or something, oh, artistic? The idea that there's something "special" that makes it "artistic" (little fluffy clouds a la Bob Ross maybe?) is the very basis of kitch.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoProjection. Artistic means creative. Duplicating a static image (dates stenciled on a canvas) digitally is pretty lame. It takes only 30 seconds thought to do better than that. You can have your fluffy little clouds thank you; I'd like to see something fresh, or reimagined.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chippy 11y agoIt was some well known artist who when confronted by a member of the public about some modern art saying "That's art?! I could have done that!" replied "So why haven't you?".
- acomjean 11y agoOne wonders if the museum looses power, will it start over? There was a mac program that after you entered your birthday would tell you how many seconds you have to live (estimated). It was a little disturbing. But even if you closed it, it would keep counting (by storing the date you entered), so it never could be reset. I'd open it again occasionally. The computer it ran on is long gone (Macos 8 era machine). Time is relentless.
- yoha 11y ago> the artists will store a mother file somewhere and create many iterations of the loop in various locations — and if one fails, it may be easily synchronized with, and replaced by, another.
- ifdefdebug 11y ago200 years from now, if I was still alive I'd be surprised if anybody gave a shit about that.
- tsotha 11y agoIt's likely everyone will have lost interest and shut the thing down in 200 days.