Kodak 102 film size

[xkaes]

For some reason figuring out the actual width of Kodak's 102 film -- from 1933(?) -- seems impossible to uncover. Assuming it's not a State secret of some sort, can anyone enlighten me?

P.S. I'm not talking about the width of the image. I need to know the width of the film itself.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

As far as I know, only the early pocket kodaks used this film. I have an 1896 model, with two spools and original paper. I can't measure it until next week, but I do know there is someone selling 3d printed spools on ebay.

 

[xkaes]

I asked on the medium format section, but perhaps it's more approriate here:

For some reason figuring out the actual width of Kodak's 102 film -- from 1933(?) -- seems impossible to uncover. Assuming it's not a State secret of some sort, can anyone enlighten me?

P.S. I'm not talking about the width of the image. I need to know the width of the film itself.

 

[KyleMika]

That is very cool, never heard of that film before! I bet it must be all nitrate

 

[xkaes]

I found out that Kodak 102 film was sold from 1896 to 1933, and had an image size of 1.5 x 2.0", but I can't find the width of the film. It's probably around 1.75" or 2.25", but who knows????

 

[MattKing]

I asked on the medium format section, but perhaps it's more approriate here:

For some reason figuring out the actual width of Kodak's 102 film -- from 1933(?) -- seems impossible to uncover. Assuming it's not a State secret of some sort, can anyone enlighten me?

P.S. I'm not talking about the width of the image. I need to know the width of the film itself.

Threads combined.
Just a heads up: if you have second thoughts about the location of a thread, just Report your first post in the thread, and request that the thread be moved in that Report.

 

[mfagan]

I found out that Kodak 102 film was sold from 1896 to 1933, and had an image size of 1.5 x 2.0", but I can't find the width of the film. It's probably around 1.75" or 2.25", but who knows????

I found somewhere that the spool length is 1.655”, so it seems that, if this is true, the film is no wider than that. Trying to post a photo of the spool (limited success doing that).

 

[MattKing]

Trying to post a photo of the spool (limited success doing that).

Resize it to a jpeg no longer than 1000 pixels on the long dimension. It should then upload easily.

 

[mfagan]

I found somewhere that the spool length is 1.655”, so it seems that, if this is true, the film is no wider than that. Trying to post a photo of the spool (limited success doing that).

Resize it to a jpeg no longer than 1000 pixels on the long dimension. It should then upload easily.

Thanks . I’m flattered by your confidence in my computer abilities, but I’m an old film guy only. The photo I copied from a link (which I also tried and failed to post) is on my iphone. If it just takes a few words, would you mind replying or PMming me with a couple of hints how to do that? Sorry …

 

[mfagan]

Thanks . I’m flattered by your confidence in my computer abilities, but I’m an old film guy only. The photo I copied from a link (which I also tried and failed to post) is on my iphone. If it just takes a few words, would you mind replying or PMming me with a couple of hints how to do that? Sorry …

 

[MattKing]

Provide us with a hint on how we could find the link, and we could probably help you with that.
When I have a photo on my phone, I email it to myself, then use my desktop or laptop computer to edit it for upload.

 

[MattKing]

That worked!
Did you do the measuring of the spool length?

 

[mfagan]

That worked!
Did you do the measuring of the spool length?

No, someone else posted that photo, and a different site gave the width of the spool. I searched several web sites for “kodak 102 film width” and found various bits of info; but not the width of the film so far. I’ll see if I can find them again and post them; but that still doesn’t answer the question.

 

[mfagan]

No, someone else posted that photo, and a different site gave the width of the spool. I searched several web sites for “kodak 102 film width” and found various bits of info; but not the width of the film so far. I’ll see if I can find them again and post them; but that still doesn’t answer the question.

 

[xkaes]

I found somewhere that the spool length is 1.655”, so it seems that, if this is true, the film is no wider than that. Trying to post a photo of the spool (limited success doing that).

This helps. Given that the spool is 1.655", the 1.5x2.0" images are horizontal on the film, suggesting that the film width is narrower than I thought -- 1 3/4" (1.75"). That means LESS than 1/8" on each side of the images. Seems odd.

 

[xkaes]

That new post suggests the spool is 1 3/4" across -- which would give 1/8" on each side of the image. That's what I expected. The film is probably 1.75" wide.

I had assumed that the film was either 1.75" or 2.25" wide -- depending on if the 1.5x2.0" image was vertical or horizontal on the film width. It makes sense that the image would be horizontal, as this would allow the camera to be smaller -- and that was one of its selling points.

Perhaps it really is a State secret.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Hey, that's a photo I took of my 102 film spool. The width of the film is 42mm. That's what size I slit down 120 film to for use in an 1896 Pocket Kodak. The frame had the long edge parallel with the edge of the film.

The film gate in that camera has no support for the edges of the film, the exposed portion of the film will occupy the entire width.

 

[xkaes]

Hey, that's a photo I took of my 102 film spool. The width of the film is 42mm. That's what size I slit down 120 film to for use in an 1896 Pocket Kodak. The frame had the long edge parallel with the edge of the film.

The film gate in that camera has no support for the edges of the film, the exposed portion of the film will occupy the entire width.

I don't see a picture or a link, but the 42mm measurement is helpful. Since Eastman in the 1800's did not use millimeter measurements, the original film is undoubtedly 1.75" (44mm) wide.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I was referring to the photo in post #10.

I my experience, 1.75" would be too wide to fit on an original spool. I would expect the original imperial measurement to be either 1.65" or 1.625" (1 5/8").

 

[xkaes]

You may very well be correct, but that only leaves 1/16 of an inch on each side of the image, a tolerance they might not mess with in 1895. There has got to be some official Kodak details somewhere, just like there is for the stuff commonly referred to as 35mm film -- something that Eastman originally produced at 1 3/8".

W.K.L. Dickson, in an article that he wrote for the SMPTE Journal in 1933, described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm film and still cameras evolved. Dickson was a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using multipe rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.

Coincidentally, in late 1888, George Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at the New York Camera Club, which Dickson happened to attend. He immediately opened discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the product right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that:

"All these samples and experiments were made exclusively for us by Mr. Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."

The Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear what the exact width these first 50 foot rolls were. Dickson goes on:

"At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Well, like I said, the way the film works in the camera, there is no space left between the edge of the frame and the edge of the film, the film gate is wide enough to span the entire width of the film.

Once the film was developed, the film would be cut and contact prints would be made in a printing frame, and the printing frame is probably where the 1.5" x 2" image size comes from more exact than the film gate. Using a printing frame, a little excess on the edges would not be a bad thing.

If you want, I can give you exact measurements of the film gate of an 1896 Pocket Kodak and the internal width of an original 102 film spool, but I'm away from home and would need a couple of days to get that back to you.

 

[xkaes]

Thanks, but your suggestions are simply guesstimates. I'll try to figure it out through Kodak's records.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, like I said, the way the film works in the camera, there is no space left between the edge of the frame and the edge of the film, the film gate is wide enough to span the entire width of the film.

Once the film was developed, the film would be cut and contact prints would be made in a printing frame, and the printing frame is probably where the 1.5" x 2" image size comes from more exact than the film gate. Using a printing frame, a little excess on the edges would not be a bad thing.

If you want, I can give you exact measurements of the film gate of an 1896 Pocket Kodak and the internal width of an original 102 film spool, but I'm away from home and would need a couple of days to get that back to you.

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.

 

[Kino]

Should you find a bit of original film from that era to measure, remember that the nitrate film of that era shrank 0.003 inches per foot immediately upon processing and has continued to shrink about 1% per 50 years afterward.

The camera gate would be a better template...

 

[Dwight Anderson]

I have measured my 102 film spools and paper. The inside width of the spools and the paper is 1.65", just slightly less than 42mm. The film gate on mine is 1.5"x2". The film gate is a separate frame nailed inside the film holder, perhaps Kodak made a change from the camera Hunter has. I had film in mine when I got it, but it was 35mm film with sprockets that someone had taped to the original paper.

The paper is marked for 12 exposures, and has patent dates of May 21, 1895 and February 18, 1896. Interestingly, after the last exposure the paper is marked "STOP", as if you were maybe going to return the camera to Kodak for developing like the original Kodak. Also there is a paper sticker glued to the inside of the end of the paper with instructions on how to use tape to attach the loose end of the film to the paper for machine processing. There is no indentify markings, other than the initials P K at the beginning of the paper, perhaps because Kodak was the only one making roll film at the time.