Breaking Bad Props

Would be a definite buy for me from @Indy Magnoli

Indy Magnoli said:

Quite possibly.

Click to expand...

Indy, got the jackets in. They're too cool - thank you for doing that!

If it helps to get the Walt glasses off the ground, I'd commit to picking up a couple pairs.

Ok guys... post your interest and spread the word: https://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=293439&p=4505667

Let's see if we can get these going...

Indy Magnoli said:

Quite possibly.

Click to expand...

Fantastic news! I have been wanting an accurate pair of Walts Glasses for a while now.

- - - Updated - - -

Indy Magnoli said:

Quite possibly.

Click to expand...

Fantastic news! I have been wanting an accurate pair of Walts Glasses for a while now.

Indy Magnoli said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The 53-17-140-41 size of the sg301 is what I've suspected to be the size of Walt's frame, but I (and Indy Magnoli, more importantly) do need the input of anyone else so that we can decide whether Walt's is the 53mm size or the 56-18-145-45 - in case the replica will be made.

Edit: I've rotated the image of the grey and worn down screen used pair so that I can measure it, and at 100% on my computer, it shows that it has 53mm lenses, an actual 19mm bridge, 145mm temples, and 41mm lens height.


Anyway, if you do get around to making these one day, I'm also buying. So, yeah. I'm interested.

SquidMan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Remember reading what I said about angles not showing the right lens shape?

This [strike]is[/strike] was a further edit of the best photo of an sg301 that I found. Prior to this edit, the left half of this frame is what I placed over Walt's face on the image above.
(attached to post)
All I did was remove the tinted lenses it had, the brow bar, thin/curve the bridge, raise it and the temple hinges (left hinge is raised 4mm, right one about 2.5 - unsure which one looks more accurate). It's a rushed edit, but I think it shows that the lens shape is round enough.


The straight, thicker bridge on the sg301 does throw me off when I simply look at it. Remember that the bridge on Walt's frame is placed higher than the top of the sg301 bridge - I'd estimate it's 2mm higher. It's placed higher, curved and thinner. This may be why the lenses don't look so close to each other on his frame. I editing the above frame in photoshop so that maybe we could better visualize whether the 17mm bridge is too narrow.

Alright, Squidman. You are unsure of the 17mm bridge. I am too. Here is why.

I was attempting something in illustrator, to further help visualize the size, but it's unnecessary now. Walt's frame does have a 19mm bridge. Maybe I'll post a photo of the shape I recreated in illustrator - later.

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.

Indy Magnoli said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I was able to estimate where the main anchor points (red dots) are located for creating the shape. This was what adobe illustrator created, solely through simplifying, after cutting intersecting lines and joining them. I was quite surprised with how it came out.

Another thing. I was told you may work out the lens shape on your own. May I recommend this image of Walt? I do think that, despite it being a low quality image, it's the best to work from since it reveals the full shape.

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?

SquidMan said:

EDIT: Now it looks like your Illustrator graphic is invisible, J EM, did you remove it?

Click to expand...

J EM if you'd rather e-mail the graphic to me, feel free. The more info we get, the better!

Thanks,
Indy

SquidMan said:

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?

Click to expand...

I didn't remove it. It seems to have broken. I uploaded it again.

Anyway, that image will also need to be rotated so that the hinges are leveled. I remember I did that to the one I uploaded above.

Indy Magnoli said:

@J EM if you'd rather e-mail the graphic to me, feel free. The more info we get, the better!

Thanks,
Indy

Click to expand...

I could've done that, but you posted as I was typing and reuploading it!

@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?

SquidMan said:

@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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

J EM said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SquidMan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I can't get it down to precise numbers because Illustrator is not precise enough. This likely needs to be done on cad software, which I unfortunately don't have on my computer. I re-estimated the locations of the main anchor points (which I think are much better than what I marked before), moved bezier handles around a bit, and actually relocated the corner anchor points (because my method of determining shape doesn't place the corner anchors where they should be), but I did go to the nearest quarter for how far away the corner anchor points are from the corners of the bounding box - which is actually 54.5 by 43.5. Instead of working on determining the lens shape with a 53 by 42 mm box, I instead opted for determining the frame shape. Indy Magnoli will have to redo it, so I think it's something he'll have to consider if he's to use my graphic for reference.

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.


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.

J EM said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your hard work is much appreciated, J EM. This looks spot-on to me.
@Indy Magnoli, any thoughts on J EM's graphic and numbers? Hopefully they can be of help to your efforts.

I purchased this since the seller ignored my request for better photos, and to be sure my eyes didn't deceive me because the photos the seller took didn't show them well. They're not Walt's glasses, but at least we finally know what line of safety eyewear Walt's glasses are from.



Also, just 5 minutes ago I learned that Walt's glasses also have grooves on the frame (more visible on right lens.)

Some info about AOP.
I'm just glad to finally know that Walt's glasses aren't prototypes. Up until 2 weeks ago, I had already accepted that they were because in all the hours I spent searching the internet for Walt's glasses, I didn't find that patent pending rivetless side shield "channel" that Walt's have. Seems to me that as soon as the patent was approved in 2003, those things were updated.

J EM, great detective work! Here's hoping that knowing the company name will yield some new discoveries, though I'd imagine monitoring eBay at random will likely be the only way to gather more info.

And good catch on those grooves! I've never noticed them before, that's a detail that Indy Magnoli may want to note for his run of replicas.

Alright guys... I'm going to get the ball rolling on these. Stay tuned!

Indy Magnoli said:

Alright guys... I'm going to get the ball rolling on these. Stay tuned!

Click to expand...

Thank you! Very exciting!

EDIT: Also, it's worth noting, that not only do the glasses J EM has found have the proper "hooks", they also have the exact same hinges as Walt's glasses. Compare:

View attachment 839472

J EM said:

View attachment 839472

Click to expand...

It might be worth getting some measurements from these in regards to the hinges and distance of the hook from the hinges.