Would be a definite buy for me from @Indy Magnoli
Quite possibly.
Quite possibly.
Quite possibly.
I'm 100% certain the lens shape is exact to Walt's. The [strike]bridge[/strike] size I'm still unsure of. [strike]I'll mention why in my reply to Squidman.[/strike] It may also be a good idea to buy an sg301 so that you can see the bronze finish first hand — I do hope you haven't purchased one [yet] because we need to discuss the overall size of Walt's glasses.So are the glasses you linked to on Cool Frames 100% frame shape? If so, buying a pair to study would certainly be worth us doing.
Remember reading what I said about angles not showing the right lens shape?Here is a comparison GIF of the Hilco SG301 (the glasses on CoolFrames) to Walt's:
As you can see, the lens shapes are almost exact, with Walt's being slightly more rounded at the outer corners. The SG301 glasses' lens frames are too close together, and the temples are attached too low compared to Walt's, but working off of a pair of these should be helpful in creating the lens frame shape in your replica.
I rotated the image of the weathered screen used pair (since the frame is actually crooked), and took measurements directly from the lens on the right. You may want to do the same. This photo is the best to get measurements from.Ok, I'll let you guys chew on this a bit more to settle the final measurements. Our technical designers do like to have any specs we can provide. Let me know what the general consensus is and we'll use those as our starting point.
EDIT: Now it looks like your Illustrator graphic is invisible, J EM, did you remove it?
I didn't remove it. It seems to have broken. I uploaded it again.Thank you for that, J EM! Here's the largest/highest res version of that image of Walt I could find, for best clarity:
EDIT: Now it looks like your Illustrator graphic is invisible, J EM, did you remove it?
I could've done that, but you posted as I was typing and reuploading it!@J EM if you'd rather e-mail the graphic to me, feel free. The more info we get, the better!
Thanks,
Indy
The shape is different because it's what illustrator automatically came up with. I just made lines from anchor points I determined. I don't know if I placed them at the exact locations. All I did was cut those lines where they intersected, joined some and simplified so that illustrator automatically creates a curve. I wanted to show that, by merely estimating the location of anchor points, illustrator made a shape that isn't too off. It might have been better if you placed the graphic over the weathered screen used pair.@J EM @Indy Magnoli
J EM, thank you for doing the legwork on figuring out the dimensions of the frames!
I do have to say, that comparing your Illustrator graphic to the poster image of Walt, the shape is somewhat different--the lens shapes of Walt's are less squat then the ones in your image:
I know that you were working off of the photo of the screen-used pair, but this serves to point out the danger of working from photographs of three-dimensional objects: the glasses are somewhat tilted away from an exact straight-on view in either the photo of the screen-used pair making them appear slightly too squat, OR in the poster image of Walt's face making them appear slightly too "tall". The question is, which of the photos is closer to a perfect straight-on shot?
The shape is different because it's what illustrator automatically came up with. I just made lines from anchor points I determined. I don't know if I placed them at the exact locations. All I did was cut those lines where they intersected, joined some and simplified so that illustrator automatically creates a curve. I wanted to show that, by merely estimating the location of anchor points, illustrator made a shape that isn't too off. It might have been better if you placed the graphic over the weathered screen used pair.
Anyway, I understand the problem you're noticing with the two different photos, but any compromise that may come from the frame tilt is insignificant. I have not brought up the problem because I refuse to believe that Walt's actual frame size is any bigger. There is another frame from Hilco that has the same lens shape as that of the sg301 (which at the moment has a lens with the same dimensions I initially got from the weathered pair.) The SG401. The lenses it has are in a bigger size (which is standard size for aviator sunglasses) at 58 length, 48 width
Take a look at this.
View attachment 836687
If you were to upscale the image of the grey pair so that the lens size is 58mm instead of 53, the lens width is approximately what it should be - 47.
That grey pair always looked weird to me. I'd argue it may be too round by looking at that photo, but when I just look at the images from when it was on sale on ebay - I can give them to you in case you don't have them - I'm relieved of the thought that that it's too round. Another thing. If Walt's frame has a 58mm lens size, then the bridge would be 21, and overall, the frame would be too big. Bryan Cranston must have a really large head to make a large aviator sized frame look very small.
While not perfect straight on shots, I think they're both near perfect. The one of Walt is still the better one to work the shape out from because it's not crooked.
Edit: I'm off by 1 mm on either the length or width. If the lens is 53mm (as I think), then the width has to be 42. If the lens is 52, then the bridge has to be 18. I'll post a new diagram later.
Maybe it looks rounder because it's crooked; the frame is bent downward at the bridge. Maybe it's the fact that we can see light reflected on the lenses, which makes us notice the lens curve, therefore, tricking our mind into thinking the frame shape is rounder. I don't know, but the lens shape is actually the way it should be.Fair points. I agree that the gray pair is a little too round looking, but I wonder why if it's confirmed to be screen-used and is clearly of the same brand/model. Different lenses distorting the frames, perhaps?
And thanks again for getting down to the (near?) exact numbers on these. This info should be very helpful when Indy produces the replicas.
I thought it to be insignificant, but being off by 1mm at the length or width does make it look off. Also, it seems to have an 18 mm bridge instead of 19 as I thought.
View attachment 837176
I'm going to settle for 53-18-145-42. I don't want to change my mind anymore. It's either 52 18 145 41, 53 18 145 42, or 53 19 145 42, but I honestly don't care anymore.
Alright guys... I'm going to get the ball rolling on these. Stay tuned!