Larry looks through his father's telescope and spots Gwen (Evelyn Ankers) through her second story window. The body of the telescope is quite large in diameter (6 inches or more) and looks to be one that would allow the user to see some of the planets, like Venus and Mars, quite clearly. So wouldn't that telescope be too powerful to allow someone to clearly see a person from as close a distance as Larry was from Gwen?
Thinking the same thing unless it has to do w\adjusting the power of magnification of the lenses.. which would make it a very weak power.
shareYou're right, me and a relative actually just thought about that the last time we watched this movie. Sir John Talbot's telescope is big enough that I would imagine it's calibrated to see far into space at other planets, so I'm not even sure a telescope that powerful would have a low-enough setting to be able to clearly see someone's house in the same town.
It also occurred to me that he's turning his attic into makeshift observatory, and yet when Larry takes a look it's pointing at least level or even at a lower angle to look down onto the town. I thought to myself "That's a useful feature for a stargazer, to be able to point the telescope downwards."
Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.
I'm sure those involved with the making of this movie thought that most people would not have even paid attention to that.
share[deleted]
No, I think the magnification was about right. As far as focus, if you've ever had to manually focus a camera, you'll notice it's not too far of a distance that you reach the infinity setting. And of course the focus was adjustable on the telescope in the movie. Technically, the image should have been upside down, as I don't think it had a converter to turn the image upright. These aren't needed for astronomy, as you just remind yourself, if needed, the image is upside down. It's only on terrestrial telescopes the image inverter is needed.
Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever.