Kodak 102 film size

[xkaes]

Thanks very much for those photos. Since Kodak made the film from 1896 to 1933, they must have sold a lot of those cameras -- the fact that they were simple and "small" undoubtedly helped sales.

I've contacted the Library at the George Eastman Museum to find out "the facts" about 102 film.

 

[BrianShaw]

Excellent post, Dwight. Thanks for the details and pics!

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I stand corrected, my camera has the same film gate as does Dwight's pictured above. I was conflating it with another Kodak box camera which does only have rollers. The film gate frame on mine measures 1.506" x 2.021"

I can also confirm the film width measurement as with Dwight above. Measuring my original spool gives a width between the flanges of 1.652" or 41.96mm which is why I cut my film to 42mm in width. This would make a nominal 1.65 inches as the maximum permissible width of the film. More often, film was originally slightly narrower than this, and the backing paper edges are skived so they slightly curve around the film base to give better light sealing characteristics.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Hi Hunter. If I'm not mistaken, you actually have one of these cameras; were you able to actually load film and use it yet? I would think that the measurements from a real camera and spool would be fairly accurate. When/if you make measurements, please also measure any film rollers that are in the film path, as those may have been intended by the inventor to be functionally like the film gate rails in modern cameras.

Brian, Thanks for asking. At this point, I was able to locate a manufacturer that was able to make me some reproduction 102 film spools out of nylon. They are of quite good quality and work in both the feed and take-up positions. (I paint the ones I use in camera black although the material is very opaque).



I also made a film slitter that cuts 120 film down to the 42mm width. It's set up to cut the 42mm strip out of the middle of the roll so that the twelve 6x6 frame numbers line up with the original red window on the Pocket Kodak. This gives twelve 1.5"x2" images on a roll with a bit of generous frame spacing since the 2" wide frame is smaller than the 2.25" frame the 6x6 numbers are designed for. This doesn't seem to be a problem though, as I can fit it on the spools, the leader and end of the backing paper are shortened a bit though.

I was going to adapt a Paterson reel to the 42mm width, however I found that a vintage Kodak film tank I have that uses aprons will work fine if I use the 47mm wide 127 apron.

What I still need to do is make a film holder for my flatbed scanner so that I can scan this format for online distribution. I have shot a couple of test rolls, but just made some quick contact prints for checking function. I do have my first test roll scanned though, which was done with a strip of 35mm color film held on the backing paper. A couple representative images attached.

 

[BrianShaw]

Very nice; very, very nice!

Frank Brownell must be smiling, if not jumping for joy, at your efforts to keep that camera going after all those years.

 

[xkaes]

I just heard back from the Technology curator at The Richard and Ronay Menschel Library at the George Eastman Museum.

He says: "The distance between the spools is 1 5/8 inches (41.275 mm)". I had thought it would be 1/8" on each side, but this suggests 1/16" instead -- which makes sense -- but he was measuring an original spool which may have changed somewhat over time.

He adds that the only 102 film that they have is in their original sealed cans -- which they are not going to open to answer my question.

He added that their records are very limited from way back then, and that the US Patent Office probably is the place to look.

I think I'll wait until I "run into someone" who has some actual 102 film. I'm sure it shows up every now and again.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s sad but not unexpected that manufacturing spec data has gone missing over the years. The patent(s) do not contain dimensions.

What reservations do you have with Hunter’s information? Considering that he has actually done it I’d assume that information was gold served to you on a silver platter.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I don't think the spool dimensions would have changed over time. They're machined from solid brass.

 

[xkaes]

What reservations do you have with Hunter’s information? Considering that he has actually done it I’d assume that information was gold served to you on a silver platter.

I'm not suggesting that other sizes of film won't work. Not at all. I cut 120 film into FOUR 15.25mm film strips -- to use ALL of the 120 film width -- instead of THREE 16mm strips. It works well enough in my 16mm cameras, but in a perfect world I would use 16mm film.

In the case of 102 film, I not looking for "what works", I'm looking for what it's supposed to be. I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that it would be a simple question. It's not like I'm asking for the meaning of life, after all.

 

[BrianShaw]

No, not the meaning of life, but next time it might be good to specify your desired tolerances and acceptable sources.

I really think you were given the answer but for some reason don’t want to accept it. All good; Good luck!

 

[xkaes]

I asked for "the actual width of Kodak's 102 film". I don't have to specify "desired tolerances and acceptable sources".

You may think I was given the answer. I know I wasn't. Even the Eastman Museum is honest enough to say they don't know, but they suspect 1 5/8".

And that's OK with me that no one who has responded, so far, knows -- because "the truth is out there".

 

[Hunter_Compton]

If you find a source that is acceptable to you, I hope you return here and share it with us. I know I am now curious to know any difference between the "actual" width and that which has been previously provided.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

It's not like I'm asking for the meaning of life, after all.

Coincidentally, the answer to that is also 42.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you find a source that is acceptable to you, I hope you return here and share it with us. I know I am now curious to know any difference between the "actual" width and that which has been previously provided.

( but I intended to quote xkaes…)

I’m being completely sincere when I wish you good luck. I’ve been on several such quests in the pipe organ world. My truth is that the answers to some seemingly simple questions either don’t exist anymore or are so difficult to find that decades of research might still be fruitless. Try this approach, ask If they have any idea where the records from that era went. In one of my quests it ended up that “a guy” bought them decades ago, which made them findable but they were only 50% complete so we had to extrapolate and measure the few extant examples for the rest of the information. For me, those measurements worked well as a “truth must be out there” knowledge base when the experts had no useful information.

 

[xkaes]

When I find out the answer, and I'm sure I will, I'll definitely announce it. I just need to find someone selling some of it -- that happens every so often, I'm sure -- and have the seller or buyer measure it. So this is not like the search for the Holy Grail (yet another Monty Python reference), so I can pretty much sit back and wait -- with the help of a computer SEARCH ENGINE.

The original BOX Pocket Kodak cameras -- not to be confused with the later FOLDING Pocket Kodak cameras, or the much later Kodak Pocket 110 cameras -- were small, sturdy, simple, durable cameras that can be used with modern films with pleasant results. There are THREE on EBAY right now -- so they are still available, and are still being used. If someone is going to the trouble of cutting film down to the correct size, it's a good idea to make it the correct size -- if you can -- and not just an approximation.