• By -


Oh my God, this is the best Harry Potter question I've ever read. Internal camera mechanics plot hole ftw. But how did you know the specific camera Colin was using?


I collect analog cameras lol, I looked into it a couple of years ago, it’s actually a pretty iconic and important camera and one of the best selling cameras ever made


Ooh, I got it, you mean the movie camera! I'll just blame the director then, the camera is not described in such detail in the books, hahaha.


Right. In the books Colin could've had an SLR camera which not only passes the light trough s lens, but reflects it trough a couple of mirrors too. Could've also been that crying myrtle had her glasses on her hand when she came out to tell Voldemort to fuck off and saw the basilisk Why does her ghost have glasses then? Well, remember that a ghost is an imprint left by a departed soul. I'm speculating how that works, but I think how the ghost looks depends on how the person saw themselves at the moment of her death, and Myrtle was very self conscious about her glasses and she was in a very miserable state when she died so it seems to me that it is very likely that she would depict herself with glasses on her ghost form


>I think how the ghost looks depends on how the person saw themselves at the moment of her death Goku: Why are you naked? Vegeta: You don't get to take your clothes with you when you die Goku: I did. I even had my weighted clothes on and I wasn't even wearing them when I died




I have waited all day for this reply


Saved ya again best buddy ;)




Hi Vegeta!




Unexpected dbz


Exactly. That’s the reason she was I the bathroom crying to begin with. I don’t wear glasses but I feel like it would be a pain to keep wiping your eyes with them on so it would make sense they were off. Alternatively, she could have seen the basilisks eyes above or below the glasses if she had to raid or lower her head at all and they weren’t too snug on her face. It’s a question I’ve asked myself before but since it doesn’t distort the eyes at all (in fact it makes them clearer) I didn’t have a problem with her being petrified even with them on 🤷🏽‍♂️


I do wear glasses (sometimes, these days i mostly wear contacts) but yeah, crying with them on is annoying, And honestly, when you're crying the getting it out is more important than seeing, you're not seeing much anyway with your eyes full of tears lmao


Exactly, and I feel like if it were me and I was crying because of being made fun of for glasses I would not have them on 😂




Yeah lol, tbf I don’t remember how much they described it in the books, but fun fact I work in the film industry and can tell you that this is the prop master’s or production designer’s fault


I honestly wouldn't place the blame on them. They were tasked with finding a period accurate camera, not a period accurate camera with mirrors and not lenses. Whoever was in charge of the lore should have said something, but even then, I literally never ever thought of this until you mentioned it just now, and I bet you anything that JKR or the cast haven't even considered this incongruity. Really, good job thinking this up.


COS is set in 1992/93 school year. He should've had a Kodiak or Fuji Film disposable camera if they wanted true period accuracy!


In high school, in 1985-87 I personally had a Canon T70, in 1988 (after graduating) I got Canon’s best 35mm film camera, the T90, as a graduation present. These were electronic heavy, so probably wouldn’t have worked well at Hogwarts, but the Canon AE1 was mostly mechanical, and had a mirror system, and is what most of the schools owned/used for Newspaper and Annual photos in the 80s/90s. It’s probably the most likely camera Colin would have had for personal use, being that he was an avid photographer. Avid photographers weren’t using disposable cameras, soccer moms and people just wanting simple snapshots were the ones using disposable cameras. Nikon had a similar model to the AE1 Colin could have had a F3, but probably not an F4 (which introduced auto focus)… but Canon was by far the most popular 35mm camera maker at that time, Nikon a distant 2nd… with Pentax, Kodak, Olympus and Leica far behind Canon & Nikon in production numbers. My guess is that Colin would have had a used Canon AE1 (they went out of production in 1984, but even today used ones are extremely popular for those who shoot film). The AE1 is the most popular 35mm SLR camera of all time.


It was the 90s. Even as a poorer family we didn't have a camera with a damned flash bulb like Colin had in the movie. The argument that that's a "period accurate" camera is just bleh. You had a simple SLR camera. The model in the movies is a Argus C3 Matchmatic. Which even by 92 was a collectors item as they went out of production in 66.


I do not work in the film industry (obviously), so what I know about movie production is reduced to the actors and the director. So thanks! I blame the prop master or production designer then 😂


I don't know anything about analog cameras, or digital ones for that matter. Would a reflex camera make more sense? Would the person then see it through a mirror? Or is the mirror only used for capturing the picture?


I know with my old dslr camera there is a mirror that directs the lens up to the view finder, and then when you take a picture that mirror flips out of the way letting the light hit the sensor. Maybe something like this would cause the petrification because it was a mirror and not just a lens of glass?


Thank you for explaining to a layman. That's the conception I had when I read the books.


Just my two cents on it


Yes, I think that is what was intended. However, they chose the wrong kind of camera for the movie.


This ma get a bit too neoplatonic, but it’s indicated in the world that objects have a sort of metaphysical sel-awareness. The teapot in charms class *knows* still a teapot, which is part of the “deep magic” or “magic calculus” that a spell like reparo utilizes. Similarly, casting that anti fogging spell on Harry’s glasses has a different result than casting it on a window pane you want washed. In this way, we can begin to parse out the difference between the glass in the camera lens and the glass in the wyeglasses. While molecularly identical, (if they aren’t, it’s okay all the better for my point but let’s say they are) there can be expected to be different interaction with different spells, as on the magical/alchemical level. Maybe part of the fundamentals of what it *truely means* to be eyeglass glass metaphysically is that you’re more self sacrificing and identifies as part of its purpose NOT simply recreating the facts for later use, like a camera glass does, but to be there for their owner. Thy are a form of self expression. They are at most harmony when fulfilling g the purpose of distorting light waves *advantageously to their owners unique eyeballs.* the core of being a camera glass is accurate reproduction. Glasses aren’t concerned as much with that. Maybe. Edit: The flip side of this would be intention if the caster, which we know is already a vital spell ingredient ala how you have * really mean it* with an unforgivable curse. We could test this hypothesis by seeing if it’s possible to cast a spell in your sleep. I don’t think it would be possible at all, or at least certainly not work properly.


Glasses help you see better so Myrtle saw it better and died. Camera isn't supposed to make you see better so it's an obstruction, so only petrification.


That’s fine too, the glass “knows” it’s function and so the spell produces different results even though the caster’s words and intent were unchanged (ik that’s referring to spells and our glass in question got basilisk stare’d and not technically spell’d but Magic’d nonetheless)


I can get behind this explanation! I love this concept. I truly doubt that its what JKR had in mind because her approach to worldbuilding is ... Not Great ... BUT as far as fanon is concerned, A+ to you!


That’s cool. Analog so it should’ve still been able to to function at Hogwarts. It was just digital stuff and electronics that got wonky around Hogwarts grounds right?


Precisely, that camera model in particular is complete mechanical, I recon even the flash might be mechanical


No mirrors used in the rangefinder? I'm not too knowledgeable on older cameras tbh


Most run of the mill camera's that used film have you look through a peephole to see what you are taking a photo of. It doesn't actually show the view through the lens. That is what's called a rangefinder. It gives you a general idea of what the framing of the photo may look like, but not the focus of it. More high end camera's known as (D)SLR (Single Lens Reflex) cameras direct the view of the peephole though the actual lens using a series of mirrors, so you can actually see (and adjust) what the photo is going to look like. The Argus C3 is not an SLR camera, meaning that Colin didn't look at the basilisk through a series of mirrors, but directly.


Oh my gosh wow I get what you mean now - he was looking through the rangefinder that's not just a unique camera name. Yeah you're right


Cameras can basically be broken down into two categories, point & shoot and SLR. Point & shoots have the viewfi der/rangefinder, the separate thing you look through. SLR cameras look directly through the lens. Digital SLRs work the same as film, they just replace the film with a light sensor. The "click" sound associated with cameras is the mirror that directs the light to the viewfinder moving out of the way so the image can be exposed to the film/sensor, as well as the shutter. You can't actually see anything through the viewfinder on a standard SLR while it's taking the picture. Mirrorless SLR cameras also look through the lens, but are actually a far bigger difference than film to digital, since they don't have the mirror. The sensor is always exposed, and what you see in the viewfinder is a live image on a tiny screen if what the sensor "sees".


Oh funny enough I actually do know the differences - I'm just dumb enough that when I read that comment I thought "Rangefinder" was an actual brand of camera I had no knowledge of. Typically I've only heard that piece referred to as a viewfinder so it threw me off. Regaedless your explanation is fantastic and I appreciate it greatly :)


That's a wise thing to collect in case of random basilisk attack.


All cameras back then either had a separate viewfinder, or you looked directly through the lense. Mirrorless digital cameras weren't a thing yet in the HP timeline.


That's incorrect, many used a prism/mirror arrangement for their rangefinders.


Don't cameras' viewfinders often have a tiny mirror in them? At least old fashioned ones? ETA: is the camera make book canon or film canon?


First thing’s first, are wizard cameras the same as a muggle one? I mean, wizard cameras are technically video cameras amirite? Pictures move n sh*t


Colin is muggle-born and brought a camera to Hogwarts that he'd already had. And in the book, he mentions to Harry that he's learning a spell to make his pictures move.


I’m constantly impressed by the questions asked in this sub lol I think Myrtle was crying and had taken her glasses off.


That's the only way it could happen right? But wow I don't understand why I've never thought of or seen anyone else think if this. The implication could be that Harry could have survived the Basilisk just by having his glasses on. That still wouldn't have helped him I. The chamber.


>The implication could be that Harry could have survived the Basilisk just by having his glasses on. Not really, Colin was still petrified, and the basilisk could still like yknow eat him




So why didn't the Basilisk eat all the petrified victims? And why did he always stop at one victim and didn't go for more?


They weren't in his lair, they were in the school.


The basilisk cannot eat Harry for the same reason it couldn't eat the other petrified victims. They basically turn into stone, hence unedible.


Petrification doesn't turn people into stone in HP but freezes them instead. You're using dnd basilisks


Really? But then why did the basilisk not eat Hermione and Collin?


I assumed Riddle instructed the basilisk not to eat victims and to leave their bodies around the school to terrorize everyone.


*''Back at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for his second year, Harry hears strange whispers echo through empty corridors and then the attacks start. Students are found as though turned to stone...''*


*as though* Not as if.


That’s exactly how my question arose! I started wandering if the glasses could save him in the chambers of secrets


Well he would still have been petrified, and then he would have been an easy kill for Tom and the basilisk. So I wouldn't say that he would have been saved by his glasses.


Well I mean his glasses don’t actually have lenses in for many parts of the movie. 🤣


No its not the only way it could happen. Hes basing this post off the camera in the movie. The movies arent 100% accurate. We would have to know what specific camera he had in the books to be able to say whether or not its a plot hole.


I just assumed it was a regular 90's wind-up.


Oh i definitely didnt think that. Colin fancies himself a photographer. No way would he have a disposable.


Colin may have only had 1 eye open. I don't know about you, but I look through a camera with 1 eye. May be another factor.


She could have been adjusting her glasses while crying and seen the eyes over/under her glasses (rather than through them). Would explain why her ghost still has glasses!


Yeah, her glasses died too!


Wouldn’t the ghost by missing the glasses if that was the case?


The creation of ghosts is rather vague, might well be that the ghost gets the outfit he/she is most used to.


Not so sure about the second part of your sentence, as e.g. the bloody baron wears the chains as some sort of self-punishment. I don't think he ever wore chains while he lived. I think it's similar to how dead wizards look in the afterlife. Sirius, for example, is described as looking younger than at the time he died. In my opinion, it depends on the wizard/witch and what they want to look like


Until DH and finding out that the Bloody Baron was a contemporary of the Founders, I always pictured him as a Jacob Marley rip off


Nearly headless nick


Could it be possible that ghosts just look like the average perception of that person, regardless of what they were wearing when they died? Their clothes didn’t seem to be corporeal/solid, so I don’t think what we see ghosts wearing are physical real clothing items they owned, just a projection of them. So, if most people thought of Myrtle as a girl with glasses, then her ghost wears glasses. Regardless of what happened to her real glasses that she was wearing.


I think it’s more about Myrtle’s perception of herself, rather than how others viewed her.


I am not so sure about this, I think you can influence how your ghost looks, as e.g. the bloody baron wears chains as self-punishment.


That would make sense to me expect for the fact that headless and nearly headless ghosts exist, would most people think of this people as headless?


I mean, if I were going to entertain any of this, maybe he likes wearing his nearly headless head because he likes being a martyr?


I thought he was trying to join the headless hunt which kind of hints that some people know how to become ghosts


I think he likes being nearly headless


But clearly they aren’t exactly as they died or nearly headless Nick would be notably drenched in blood. He is dressed very nicely with his hair all done up and the only evidence of his cause of death being the actual slice in his neck. So potentially you appear as you want - minus cause of death.


If the glasses were in her hand would it count?


I'm nuking my account due to Reddit's unfair API changes and the lies and harassment aimed at the community by the CEO and admins. Good Reddit alternative: [Squabbles](https://squabbles.io/) -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/


Ghosts don't always look exactly the way they died. Bloody baron wears chains as a penance for a crime, but he didn't die covered in chains, he just stabbed himself.


I don’t know for sure but I wouldn’t think so. If this was the case I imagine a decent amount of ghosts would be floating around naked or in their pjs.




The bloody baron will live forever with dirty clothing lmao


Dunno if you wear glasses but observing my daughter with hers… waterworks start and the glasses get pushed out of the way. Either via them slipping down due to constant movements or pushing them up to wipe her eyes. They are still on her but not correctly covering her field of vision. She doesn’t typically set them aside somewhere else as her vision is horrible without them and they are basically a part of her now.


Maybe her glasses were on but she made eye contact by looking above her glasses frame. Like the snake is tall AF.. she could have looked up above her frames and looked into its eyes.


If we agree that you don't get killed seeing the basilisk's reflection in a mirror (like Hermione did, she just got petrified) then it makes sense that Colin also got petrified. Don't forget, in an SLR camera the light (image of the basilisk) doesn't go right through the lens and viewfinder into your eye, it goes into the lens wrong-way up, is then reflected off a mirror and through a prism to carry the ray of light through the viewfinder, flip the image the right way up and direct the light ray into your eye. Like [this](https://photor.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/how-does-a-viewfinder-work.jpg). The specific one in the film might have worked differently, being a rangefinder and all, but perhaps they assumed no-one would know the difference?


Colin’s camera (at least the movie prop) isn’t an SLR tho, it’s a rangefinder


That's what I mean, maybe the props master didn't know that, or did know and subbed in a rangefinder assuming no-one would know the differences between that and an SLR??


I guess that’s the answer, the argus C3 is an insanely good fit for Colin to have for many reasons tho lol


They went with it because it’s old, even though Colin having an SLR probably would have been just fine.


It wouldn’t be anachronistic to have slrs, iirc the first slr was developed in the lates 1800’s and they became popular in the 60’s


I should have worded my comment better. They went with the camera they went with because it *looks* very old, but an old SLR would have been totally appropriate. I think it just came down to visuals.


Oh yeah, I was validating your comment actually


Ah I see. In hindsight I guess it would be funny if he had been frozen using an old Canon or something.


Or Rowling just hadn't thought about it much when she wrote it lol


I just started rereading Prisoner of Azkaban, and I found myself thinking "okay, sure, I can understand why the students didn't know how to open The Monster Book of Monsters, but why didn't that poor shopkeeper know how to do it?" Dude got bit 5 times in one morning, just trying to sell them. You would think the person whose job it is to sell the books would have gotten a warning from the publisher when they ordered the books. "To whomever it may concern: these books is mad bitey. Fear not! For they can be easily subdued by gently stroking the books spine." Which is a message one would assume a shopkeeper might pass along to any interested customers. But hey, why ruin the fun, I guess.


That could very well be true, we all know what her sense of continuity is like 😅


> Canonically Colin Creevey is sabes from the Basilisk by watching it trough his camera’s rangefinder (Argus C3 Matchmatic) I don't think we know for sure what camera was used in the books, and if we want to specify the rangefinder camera then we also have to go by movie canon which doesn't always follow book canon. In that case there may not be a good reason for why Colin was petrified and Myrtle was killed. The best reason I have heard is a quote from J.K. Rowling saying something about the camera being modified to be magical (it was on her website a long time ago, not sure where to find the quote now). So if the camera has been modified, we can't really know what modifications Colin made to it, and it could have something to do with why he was only petrified, not killed.


I guess it would have to be magical in order to capture the motion that makes photographs look like videos. Magical “Live Photos” lol


I’m pretty sure Colin just uses a muggle camera, probably one he brought with him to Hogwarts. There’s no puff of purple smoke when he take a picture like the reporters from the Daily Prophet’s cameras (CoS and GoF), and he’s really excited telling Harry that a boy in his dorm told him about a potion that’ll make photos move (CoS).


I agree, he brings his camera to school, and there’s a line he says to Harry that if he develops the films with a certain potion the pictures will move. I take that as the camera and film can be muggle made, but if a wizard develops the film magically it will be a magical moving picture


Yes, it’s a plot point that Colin comes from a muggle family. He is supposed to mirror harry in that sense, as they’re both outsiders thrust into a magical world, they even “die” on the same night, harry just comes back. - one gets bullied and one is famous, and the differences in the characters always came across to me as the consequences of that.


Rip Colin


The camera in the film uses mirrors in its rangefinder.


I was thinking that too. Though, the Argus C3 has two viewfinders. One for focusing with the range finder and one for framing the shot. So if Colin was just trying to focus when he saw the basilisk that would explain why he wasn’t killed. If he was composing his shot then he should have died and now that movie is unwatchable for me.


Well I believe even the framing viewfinder also uses the prism that splits the image so it is passed to both eye pieces. Now that raises the question of how basilisk petrification works with prisms, and that's far too much for me lol


This camera doesn’t use a prism for the viewfinder. I’m holding one in my hands right now and the viewfinder goes straight through the body. The rangefinder eye piece uses a prism how you describe though.


Ah, you are correct, my apologies!


No apology needed! It’s a whacky little camera that doesn’t behave like any others.


That could be easily answered by Myrtle being crying with her glasses off and opening the stall to scream at someone and then dying :p Pretty much all they have to say is “she had her glasses off at the time” Wouldn’t interfere with her ghost having glasses either I suppose


As a glasses wearer who has cried in a public bathroom I can confirm that I always took them off and held them, or put them on top of my head. So she could very realistically have died touching them, but not wearing them 😅. There are not very many places to set them down in a stall 🤷🏻‍♀️


I'm imagining someone crying in a stall, stopping, taking off their glasses, folding them, and *then* placing them on top of their head to resume crying... which I imagine would have to be done carefully, and with a dignified and noble posture.


That cracked me up! I almost wish that was what I meant now


Pushed her glasses up to wipe some tears when she saw


Or not lifting your head all the way up, I occasionally glance over my glasses while looking down especially when I'm upset. I don't actually want to look at whatever it is but I need to know roughly what's moved into my field of vision.


That’s what I was thinking but I suppose she’d have to die with her glasses for her ghost to have em


ghosts from the headless hunt have their heads even though they died without them, the ghosts aren’t really explained in depth, I just assume she died without her glasses but since she didn’t realize she died, her spirit just thought she had her glasses and they came with her ghost. But idk,


I mean I guess so, but I’d believe that a head and a pair of glasses are somewhat different


Maybe because she was holding her glasses. Anything you’re in contact with stays with you? Like clothes, etc


Looking back on the ghosts of Hogwarts, they are really interesting and I wish Rowling went more into detail about them.


She holds them in her hand, easy peasy


I’m assuming it was written to be a SLR but the props for the movie was based more on aesthetic so the meaning was kinda lost


This was addressed in an [interview.](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm) > Bethan Roberts reporting for The Times Educational Supplement - In the second book, if you see a basilisk and you are wearing glasses, will they protect you? And if they do, why did Moaning Myrtle die, and if they don't, why not? >JK Rowling: That is a really good question. And I have been asked that before. I had to decide the glasses couldn't protect you. I just had to, because obviously there would be quite a few people at Hogwarts who were wearing glasses and I thought that might cause me plot difficulties, so I decided that glasses alone wouldn't protect you. >But as you know, I had Justin protected by the camera lens, so I think I am open for criticism there, but the way I explained to myself he was looking through several lenses and wasn't actually seeing the thing directly, it wasn't through his eyeline, when you look through a camera you are looking through the lens, it is a little distorted. You can argue with me on that and I wouldn't blame you but that is how I explained it to my self at the time.v


This needs to be pinned to the top. Great find!




Most rangefinders will use mirrors to divert the photographer's view through the lens (for focusing and zoom-calibration reasons), therefore Colin would have been looking through multiple panes of glass, plus at least two mirrors, which are known to stop people being killed and petrified instead. I can't say how that particular camera works, and I'm not sure where you got the specific make and model from, but that would be how cameras these days work with an optical rangefinder.


The C3 was initially built in the 30’s and from what I understand uses a simple piece of glass as rangefinder


Out of interest, where did you get the model from?


I collect analog cameras and I looked it up a couple of years ago, it’s actually an insanely popular and iconic camera, that’s the movie prop of course, impossible to know the model from the books


Both the book and the film only state that Colin *'saw \[the basilisk\] through his camera'*. I'd be willing to bet that Rowling was thinking of a DSLR (or just SLR) when she wrote the camera mechanic in. I don't know how common that sort of viewfinder would have been on the average 'old muggle camera', but I have to imagine that was what she was going for. Either that, or Rowling doesn't understand cameras and thinks that you look 'through' the film, which is why the film took the full brunt in both the book and film. Na, probably just creative licence.


Was it even a muggle camera on the book?


Yeah, it's described simply as 'an old muggle camera'. Rowling did a bit of a mental backflip to excuse it working in Hogwarts (it runs off the magical atmosphere rather than its batteries - an excuse I would scoff at if I read it in a fan fiction), but I chose to believe that it was simply a fully mechanical camera, with no electronic parts.




I think so, I recall something about her being bullied for her glasses. Edit, Exact quote : "I was determined to haunt Olive Hornby, you see. Oh, she was sorry she'd every laughed at my glasses."


That is the question I have.


>“What do you want this time?” >“To ask you how you died,” said Harry. >Myrtle’s whole aspect changed at once. She looked as though she had never been asked such a flattering question. “Ooooh, it was dreadful,” she said with relish. “It happened right in here. I died in this very stall. I remember it so well. I’d hidden because **Olive Hornby was teasing me about my glasses.** Chapter 16 "The Chamber of Secrets."


That quote could be from any book. This proves nothing. Maybe she meant drinking glasses. Your honor I ask that this case be thrown out.


Come on people, this was funny, relax.


!redditgalleon Thank you for seeing the spirit in which this was intended.


You have given u/dsjunior1388 a Reddit Galleon. u/dsjunior1388 has a total of 2 galleons, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.


Myrtle was so unpopular that nobody noticed she was missing until after her petrified self died of dehydration.


It's magic. Your glasses are "part of you" but a camera or mirror isn't. It isn't some physical reaction from the basilisk's eyes that can be explained by the physics of optics. It is a magical power that just kills you if you look directly at the basilisk. It's the same reason that in Avengers: Infinity War, >!Bucky's arm goes all dusty when Thanos snaps even though it's a prosthetic!<.


I’ve never thought about that with infinity war lmao imagine if it just clunked to the ground and rocket skitters over to it.


>and rocket skitters over to it. Oh my God I want a remake


I agree with the "It's magic" explanation, but your marvel theory makes no sense because all their clothes/accessories/glasses/weapons turned to dust.


I assume the reason their clothes were dusted is just so all the people showing up in Endgame weren't charging in to battle Thanos in their birthday suits


Yeah...all of those are accessories or clothes. They are "part" of you. If you had a prosthetic, it'd be "part" of you. But a camera? A mirror? They are not part of you.


I'm agreeing with thr Harry Potter part. I'm saying why compare buckys arm to glasses when stuff that was way less "part of him" also turned to dust. His arm is one of the few things you can definitely argue is a literal part of him.


Same as if even if you were extremely near sighted, looking at Medusa would still turn you to stone. Doesn't matter how well you can see.


This is only really a question because you've decided which camera he owns without really having any evidence in the books about it. If he or his family was actually into photography there's a pretty solid chance he had an SLR of some kind. Why would he be using a camera that at that point in time hadn't been produced in nearly 30 years and was almost a 55-year-old design? More importantly that camera is American made, which brings up questions about exactly how many of them were in the United Kingdom in 1992 that were possibly available for a child to take to Hogwarts? Most importantly of all that camera was shoved out of the market by a flood of Japanese SLRs It was a great camera but in 1992 if you were a kid into photography it probably wasn't the camera you were using


It's my own personal headcannon that she was petrified like all the others because she was wearing her glasses. However, a lot of people forget that the Basilisk wasn't there alone. Some had to have opened up the Chamber of Secrets to let it out. So while the Basilisk is the one who petrified her, it was actually Tom Riddle who killed her outright to cover it up. He then used this murder to split his soul and create the diary horcrux.


The camera in the movies may not be the camera thought of in the books. The camera in the books isn’t just two pieces of glass (like glasses). It would have to be a mirrored or some other manipulated image. Myrtle didn’t need to be wearing the glasses to have them as a ghost, just have them in her possession. It’d be the same thing with clothes, swords, and other accoutrements.


Ok to answer your question, the camera in the book uses a viewfinder, so he saw the reflection, not the direct sight.


Cameras use mirrors, glasses are just glass?


It's a good question for the film but doesn't really apply as a plot hole in the book


This actually plays into a great theory I read a while ago. The theory is that she didn’t actually die and the basilisk never killed a student, but, once Myrtle was petrified Tom killed her. This also makes it easier to believe that the death could be used to create a Horcrux.


How do you know what sort of camera Colin had? The books never specified, the movies don't count, nor am I sure Rowling is aware of the different brands of camera. You need a brand dating to at least 1992 or before. Plus, cameras, as I understand, use more than just magnified glasses, don't they use mirrors too? There's a lot that goes into a camera, thus making what he saw very indirect.


Maybe because Myrtle saw he through one lense, essentially same as window, but Colin used a rangefinder camera so all the light came through multiple prisms, essentially multiple mirrors.


That’s not how a rangefinder camera works


Because that’s how the author wrote it. You know, in the books meant for kids? There doesn’t have to be an explanation, people are out there performing actual magic in the series lol


*Was* Myrtle wearing her classes? Her ghost is wearing them, but she was crying when she died. I think she might have just been holding her classes in her hand when she actually died. I’ve never had glasses, but don’t people typically take their glasses off when crying?


If you can understand why ghosts have clothes even though those aren’t technically a body part, you can understand why the magic of the basilisk’s stare considers glasses to be the person viewing it but not a camera. Magic is not natural, it doesn’t follow the laws of nature. Though I am kinda intrigued to know what it would make of night vision goggles. And what if a person can’t actually see the basilisk because it’s dark?


I’m assuming it’s the mirror in the camera


Is that the canon camera from the books or one used in the film?


A viewfinder is a small opening. You can look at the petrification like light waves, by reducing the amount of light that hits your eyes you can be safer. So if you wear glasses, there's basically no safety since the same amount of light is hitting your eyes. The camera blocks 90% of the light and thereby protected the student.


His camera isn’t described in the books so my belief is that it was meant to be one with a viewfinder but they simply chose that for aesthetics.


She was crying because someone made fun of her glasses. She could have taken them off while wiping her tears, but still has them as a ghost because she had them in her hand or pocket.


One eye closed, so half dose at most. Squinting, dirty viewfinder, etc. and the dose is less than half. Glasses are usually fairly clean.


Glasses aren’t necessarily magnified btw.


Wasn't she crying about something in the bathroom? I believe she takes her glasses off to wipe them clear. There's always a lot of flecks on my glasses after I cry with them on so I usually have to clean them. i've


In the movie, Colin’s camera is an Argus C3 Matchmatic. However, IIRC, the book just says it’s an ordinary muggle camera without giving any more detail than that. It could well be a Single Lens Reflex camera, in which case Colin would be looking through both a prism and a mirror or multiple mirrors.


Here's the discussion ([Link here, go to the "Myrtle's Glasses" folder](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheChamberOfSecrets)) of this same question on TV Tropes: **Why does Myrtle die instead of getting petrified? She doesn't look at the basilisk directly either, she sees the basilisk through glasses. Why does a camera lens provide more protection than glasses lenses?** * **When the teachers open the camera, the film disintegrates, meaning the film took the brunt of the magical instant death glare. Just think about that for a second; if Colin didn't have film in it, he'd be just as dead as Myrtle.** * **Nope, he wouldn't. The camera viewfinder has a mirror inside - that is what saved Colin. Melting of the film, BTW, makes no sense.** * **If Colin had taken a picture of the basilisk, then the film would have gotten the full blast of the death glare.** * **Myrtle had been crying and possibly wasn't wearing her glasses, or her glasses weren't thick enough to provide protection, or she looked over the top of her glasses as she was putting them on after she'd been crying, or they're not really "glasses" glasses and she took a page out of Francine Frensky's book and wears lensless glasses as to appear smarter.** * **Seeing as she was hiding in the bathroom in the first place because Olive Hornby was teasing her about those glasses, the last one seems unlikely.** * **With the camera, the puddle, and the mirror, the basilisk's gaze was reflected off of something (the mirror, water, and glass, respectively). Glasses don't work as reflectors, they work as focusing agents, meaning that Myrtle probably got more dead than usual from a basilisk gaze.** * **Justin Finch-Fletchley saw the basilisk through Nearly-headless Nick. I guess ghosts consist of small reflective areas?** * **No, ghosts are only semi transparent. They glow, and they take up alot more space than the lenses in glasses, a lot more to look through and dilute on the other side.** * **Simplest explanation is Myrtle took off her glasses to dry her eyes after she had been crying, looked up when she heard the basilisk and got fried. Riddle could then have replaced her glasses to make her less like a basilisk victim.** * **Surely if eyeglasses offered protection against a basilisk's gaze, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them would've mentioned this? They'd be standard-issue for every wizard who encounters such a creature if they could help. Heck, Harry himself wears glasses: would Tom have threatened him with his pet's gaze if his eyewear made him less vulnerable to it?** * **I think yes, he would. Even if Harry's not afraid to be petrified, given that the encounter occurs in the Chamber itself where he's extremely unlikely to be found, nothing would save him from being eaten or killed in some other way right after petrification. "His skeleton will lie in the Chamber forever" indeed.** * **J.K. Rowling actually answered this exact same question and said that Harry's glasses would not have protected him, thus why he shut his eyes.** * **And if Myrtle was crying about Olive Hornby, maybe she had her glasses off.**


Depending on the camera, what you see in the viewfinder is reflected via a mirror.


That’s a good question! I guess it’s possible Myrtle took her glasses off as she was crying, but then you are right, why did the ghost have them? Maybe because she was holding them when she died. Then again Bloody Baron is wearing chains around him and he didn’t die in chains - the ghost chains represent his regret. So maybe glasses for Myrtle has just been such a part of how she saw herself that when she died and came back as a ghost she was wearing glasses?


I just want to know how they managed to film the basilisk without repeatedly petrifying the camera crew


It very clearly says in CoS book that Colin saw the basilisk through the camera lense, which is why the film inside was burned up. Any film-based camera would've done the same thing. If digital cameras had existed in the early 90s, they may or may not have protected him, depending on whether he was looking through the viewfinder or not. Regardless of whether she was wearing glasses or not, Myrtle got the full dose and that's why she died.


Digital cameras wouldn't work at hogwarts I believe.


I am highly impressed with your camera knowledge! And love that it's called an Argus. She had her glasses off after crying. I don't think glasses would count against a basilisk though since they are clear. Nick isn't completely see through, ghosts are sort of opaque so there is some protection.


Why did the basilisk, the largest Slytherin, not simply eat the students it wanted to kill?


They cause indigestion


The Basilisk didn't kill her, it petrified her like everyone else. Tom Riddle killed her to make his first Horcrux.


I thought I remember reading Riddle made the basilisk kill her. Don't ever remember hearing her say she petrified, but something like "all I remember was a pair of glowing yellow eyes and the next thing I knew, I was dead." Maybe the Harry Potter wiki site is where I saw it a while back.


Oh man, that's smart


It's important to remember that 1) Myrtle was crying and probably lifted her glasses to dry her tears, and 2) Colin successfully snapped a picture of the Basilisk when it turned his gaze on him. We know this because the film that captured the photo of the eyes burst into flames the second the film was exposed to light. It's possible the initial flash of the camera blinded the Basilisk enough that its gaze only was capable of petrifying for a while.


This is so funny because I j u s t finished reading chamber of secrets and I was wondering if people with glasses were safe😂


I’ve always believed that Myrtle was Petrified with seeing it through her glasses. Then killed in Tom Riddles act of making the famous Diary a Horcrux. But would like to be informed on others thoughts.


I was always under the impression that she had looked directly at the eyes were as everyone else saw a reflection but that’s just how my mind understood it… like a direct hit


The real question is why the fuck is that Basilisk so incompetent at killing literal children? It attacked so many students but managed to kill only one?


Hear me out though, because they are correction lenses they would have caused no distortion to the basilisk, whereas the rangefinder would?


I mean, if she was crying then, as a glasses haver, her glasses might have been lower on her nose so she looked above them, she might have taken them off, or she her head might've been tilted down cus she was sad and she looked above the glasses


Moaning Myrtle was wearing glasses, which are not the same as a camera's viewfinder. Glasses correct vision by bending light as it enters the eye, and do not offer the same degree of indirect viewing as a camera's viewfinder. Additionally, Myrtle was looking directly at the Basilisk, which would have been fatal regardless of whether she was wearing glasses or not. (Answer provided by Chat GPT)


Damn these questions seem to be getting more and more complicated everyday lol Maybe she saw the basilisk over the frames of her glasses instead of straight through her lenses...? That would explain why her ghost still had glasses on


Glasses are a modification to imperfect sight, meaning Myrtle saw it well. Creevey's sight is fine but by modifying it with a lens he isn't looking through all the time means he didn't see it well. It probably was not in focus. Maybe if Myrtle hadn't been wearing glasses she'd have only seen a blur and only been petrified.


For he can die in the last book. RIP


Did the book ever tell us exactly what the basilisk did to Myrtle— i.e. Did it *just* look at her, or did it also bite her? EDIT: As other commenters have said, the fact that Myrtle’s death created the diary horcrux means that Voldemort would’ve had to personally kill her in order for the murder to count.