Back to general because I find nothing on design questions.
I am having a fit with by old brain or maybe it is just my eyes? I am working on a Art Deco clock that I have scaled up in size from a picture I found on the net. I am not sure I can explain my problem. I made a mock-up in poplar and somehow it just does NOT look correct. I was wondering if anyone knows how Art Deco was scaled. See: http://wwar.com/masters/movements/art_deco.html I am NOT a artist! Is there some scale that was used for the vertical height to the foundation width for Art Deco? As in the base width to the vertical height and width?. The clock has a look of a old skyscraper with different height/width vertical towers. I want to scale my clock up a bit in overall size from the picture. Maybe about 8 inches wide by 10(something) inches high. Just a starting point that came to mind to fit a 4 inch clock dial face with the outer face ring. I guess some of my thought are related to finding a crystal clock cover without making something that I cannot get on the net at a reasonable price. Never tried to blow glass. The Clock I want to make with a larger scale: http://uv201.com/Clock_Pages/Telechron/electrolarm.htm I guess I an looking for a ratio for width to height that the 1920’s Art Deco folks used…
Replies
You have all the data you need in the pictures. All you need to do is account for the perspective when measuring objects that are further to the rear. You have only a small set back to account for in the clocks pictured in the group. Since you also know the width of the base you can get the measurements of everything quite accurately by working out the ratio of photograph size to real size, again remembering to adjust for any perspective.
Will,
Keep track of those measurements for those of us waiting for you to get the kinks worked out of the design.
--jonnieboy
I think it would be 1:1.618 turned sideways.
Hi Will,
What you are wanting is something that the old timers called the "rule of three"- if you know the height and width of an object, and choose the height or the width of what you want it to be, scaled up (or down), you can with a simple operation, calculate the unknown dimension to maintain the same proportions.
Simply put, the height of the known object (call it H1) multiplied by the width of the new object (W2) is equal to the height of the new object (H2) multiplied by the width of the known object (W2).
If H1xW2=W1xH2, then H1W2 divided by W1 = H2
For example, given width of 4" x height 8" of the old clock, and a new height of 10" for your new one:
4x10=8x? then
40/8=5
You can take direct measurements from a photo, if as Steve pointed out, it isn't grossly distorted (like by a wide angle lens).
Ray
I'd suggest a different,
I'd suggest a different, perhaps more practical, approach, Will. Instead of looking for custom parts that would fit the scaled-up dimensions, you might try scaling your clock to the parts that are readily available.
Another alternative would be to change the design, such as making the clock a "circular window" in the Art Deco "building", so it is less prominent in relation to the external dimensions.
Note, too, that the antique clock you're working from was not a "high" example of Art Deco design, so you have lots of room for interpretation.
To all, thanks.
"All you need to do is account for the perspective when measuring objects that are further to the rear"...
Maybe the camera perspective is the key? I tried photoshop that has a camera perspective correction and all I did was make it worse!
I have used the 1:1.618 golden ratio for my first mock-up. In fact I use it for most, but not in all, of my work. I do not use the exact ratio but as close as possible. Most of what I make is for others that have their own idea of what they want it to look like. I have to fit to the dimensions they give me.
As to the clock:
It is for my son-in-law that wants it 'as is' but scaled up taller in size so changing the basic design is out of the question (for him). I also have to stay with the round clock face outer trim because this look is what makes him love the design. I'm even beginning to like it! I also need to stay within clock part sizes I can purchase. I cannot afford custom made/sized parts.
The overall resized scale seems OK but my issues seem to be related to the thickness of the vertical tower sections and their set-backs, front to back. I think the set-backs are my hardest to figure out. There is/are? also some carvings I will have to do at the base trim.
I did notice this morning, using a different pair of glasses, that my mock-up seemed to look better. My newer glasses seem to curve things. I tried my old glasses and it looked better to me.
I scale from pictures all the time but not with anything as small as this clock.
I guess, I'm not sure how to scale depth to width! Or then again, am I way too fussy about this? Probably. But not from what I did when making scale models. Then I had exact original sizes to work with. Maybe I'll try to find my model scaling rulers. All I found so far is HO scale....
Way to cold to work out in my shop anyway!
I'd start with the clock dial
I'd start with the clock dial you are planning to install. That will set the relative distances around it which will do more than anything else to make it look like the clocks in the picture.
I can see no problem in altering the height by stretching the shaft base as much as you feel like. I also think that if you make it bigger you don't have to it deeper. Why? There are no magic proportions there. The relationship of the bumps and jumps in the surface are most closely related to the size of the clock dial. Why not stretch it vertically or flatten it? And maybe you got the mockup just right and like a lot of objects, the photos of it make it look better than it does sitting next to you. If that's the case, trust your eye and adjust.
Sounds like a place where building a model in sketch-up could solve your problem and let you try multiple variations.
Peter
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled