Mystery b&w film format (~11 x 6+ cm)

[syncrasy]

I'm sorting though family negatives of various sizes. I've identified at least three film formats (126, 127, 120/220) but one has me stumped. It's a very wide aspect ratio negative. The negatives are trimmed, so I presume it's roll film. I thought it might be 616 film, but the dimensions are slightly different.

The film measures about 4 3/8 x 2 1/2+ inches (11 cm x 6+ cm). The long dimension (11 cm) is defined by the image edge. But note that I added "+" to short dimension because the short dimension of the film is trimmed, so it’s possible the original film was actually wider than 2 1/2" (6 cm). One is marked Kodak Safety Film but most are unmarked. While I think some images are camera originals, some appear to be reproductions (photos of prints), further complicating identification. The image quality is not as good as the 120/220 medium format negatives; I'm not sure if that's a function of the film or the camera.

Any ideas? What camera might have been used with this film?

 

[voceumana]

It might be roll film size 130; see: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/130_film

2-7/8 x 4-7/8 image size. It's the only obsolete roll film size I could find that is wider than 2-1/2 inches but less than 3 inches wide.

 

[syncrasy]

It might be roll film size 130; see: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/130_film

2-7/8 x 4-7/8 image size. It's the only obsolete roll film size I could find that is wider than 2-1/2 inches but less than 3 inches wide.

Hmmm... That's a possibility. But the image size long dimension on all of my negatives is 4-3/8 (11 cm) maximum. That's the actual defined image border (not trimmed). And the physical film never exceeds 4-1/2 inches long. I suppose it's possible the camera used would create an image smaller than 4-7/8 inches, but I'm not sure.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Might be 118. This format was the same width as 122 "postcard" but only 4 1/4 long on 3 1/4 width. Possible the frame were cropped with scissors to get them to fit in a negative sleeve...

 

[syncrasy]

Might be 118. This format was the same width as 122 "postcard" but only 4 1/4 long on 3 1/4 width.

That's another possibility. I had dismissed 118 earlier because the images are longer than 4-1/4, but perhaps that's just a naming/sizing convention.

Possible the frame were cropped with scissors to get them to fit in a negative sleeve...

Yes, that's almost certainly the case. The negatives fit into the sleeves almost perfectly, if a bit snug. The compositions are very odd, so a good portion of the image likely was sacrificed.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Could also be from an autographic version of a 124 Postcard camera. The Autographic note slot takes space from the image area, so a 5 1/2" negative might wind up as 4 7/8". That would be a "3A" if you're looking for the cameras that might have made those.

 

[voceumana]

Any camera can have a smaller film gate than what the film was designed for to give a smaller image, and copy images can, of course, vary immensely.

 

[syncrasy]

Thanks to both of you. Both 130 and 118 are plausible, but without an untrimmed sample, this might just have to remain a mystery (I'll just call it "postcard type" film).