What film size did this take?

[oftheherd]

I recently purchased a 6x9 drop bed folding camera. It came with a roll film holder and two working cut film holders. The roll film holder turns out not to be 120 film size, but it appears it is for 6x7 photos. Photos below (from our friend flickr) show the roll film holder open and the previous film reel, metal no less; a 120 reel up agains the former metal reel; and a comparison of the two next to each other.

Heavily painted, apparently from the factory.

A 120 roll against the metal reel in the holder. BTW, the holder is made with slots in the reel holders, not holes for the end of the roll.

Better indication of the size difference between the metal reel and a modern 120 reel.

Anybody ever seen such a holder, or know what size film it would have taken? I was quite happy with the purchase, although I certainly don't need another 6x9 folding camera, really only wanting the cut film holders and the roll film holder. The two A.P. working holders don't fit into my Zeiss Ikon 195/3, but just do fit in my Bee Bee 6x9. Not what I had planned from the purchase. I'm hoping I can get a machine shop to make me some film inserts. Then it would have been worth it.

Another curiousity is the bag the items came in. I smalling canvas bag that just fits the camera, roll film holder, and the cut film holders.

With holder

And closed.

It sort of has a look of being military, and the seller was in the UK. Anyone seen such a bag and know what it was originally for?

Thanks for any information anyone can provide.

 

[kbg32]

I forget the film size, but it is no longer being made. Josef Sudek used a Kodak Panoram that used this format. He would use sheet film cut down to size and tape it inside the camera.

 

[kbg32]

Actually, that might take 105 or something like it, rollfilm. Damned if you would still be able to find any.

 

[oftheherd]

kbg32 - thanks for the info. The opening for the roll holder appears to be about 6x7. I guess I need to measure it to be sure, since it shouldn't be that, as one can see from the size to the two holders, there is a substantial difference.

I do not expect to be able to use the roll film holder. It will have to be a shelf queen unless I could find a way to cut down 120 film. I don't know how one would get the numbers right, if one could. I would like to get film inserts for the cut film holders though. I don't think trying to cut glass to fit would be a fun project.

 

[kbg32]

You might be able to spool 120 film onto that reel. Except you would need another take up reel.

 

[johannielscom]

look here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format


It might help you determine the format that fits.

 

[sevo]

(that was wrong)

 

[johannielscom]

This seems to be a twenties Rollex holder - the round stamped/soldered film roll compartments are quite unique and don't seem to have been copied by anyone at least in Germany and Europe (and at that period overseas imports into Europe were quite rare).

As far as I can make out, the only slightly larger than 120 format Rollex backs were made in was 116/616 (70mm wide), so it will probably be that.

Euhm...

that spool size in the pictures is smaller than a modern 120 spool, not larger...

 

[sevo]

Euhm...

that spool size in the pictures is smaller than a modern 120 spool, not larger...

Ah, ok. So none of the bigger sizes. Nor 105, then - as fas as I can make out, that can have been no smaller than 120 (being the same size on the short edge of the images), and besides it is not in the Rollex catalogue. There were plenty of films larger than 120, but only few sub 120 roll film sizes. Perhaps 127 (if that hasn't already been excluded, being a modern, still available size), 121 (same format, different spool, but probably already extinct back then) or 128 (even smaller) - these seem to have been the common smaller roll film formats available at the time.

Of course, it may have been some non-Kodak standardized size - but then the holder can hardly be a Rollex (unless it was made to order for the maker for that odd size film).

If the sheet/plate holders fit another 6x9 camera, the camera itself will be 6x9, and we're only talking of film formats, not outer holder dimensions - there are two variations to the nominal 6x9cm format (US 2x3" and German 2 1/4"x3 1/4"), but the only German style metal holder format below them was 6x4.5cm - too small for a roll film holder. There were several "Falz" type metal holder variations with many small incompatibilities between them, so it is not odd if it fits one, but not the other camera. The easiest solution to shoot film now, without breaking the authenticity of camera and components, would be to purchase a Rollex 120 holder from the same period.

 

[Sanders McNew]

It's hard to tell from the photos (at least, with my vision) but it looks to me like it's taking 620 film. If the film from a 120 roll will fit the metal spool, then it's definitely a 620 format. It's pretty easy to pick up a few extra 620 spools, and respool 120 film onto them.

If the spool won't take 120 film, then you're out of luck.

 

[Dwig]

look here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format


It might help you determine the format that fits.

+1

It's a good table as far as it goes, but does lack info on the spool spec's and film width for most sizes.

Check out this page for spool dimensions: http://web.archive.org/web/20061210175355/medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It sort of has a look of being military, and the seller was in the UK. Anyone seen such a bag and know what it was originally for?

I don't think it was military issue - it looks far too light weight. I had a box camera, once, that came in a very similar bag but was rather smaller. Could it be a case for the Brownie Target Six-16?

 

[sevo]

It's hard to tell from the photos (at least, with my vision) but it looks to me like it's taking 620 film.

620 is exactly the width of a 120 spool, so that can't be.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Estimation on spool width difference to the 120 one; Eastman 129 roll.

Ernst

 

[sevo]

Estimation on spool width difference to the 120 one; Eastman 129 roll.

Could be, by size. Rollex holders in 129 (and 128) don't appear on any of my 1920's German camera store catalogues. But Wikipedia lists these two as formats particular to Ensign cameras - these formats may have been popular enough on the British market to make a special holder size for export.

 

[oftheherd]

Estimation on spool width difference to the 120 one; Eastman 129 roll.

Ernst

Could be, by size. Rollex holders in 129 (and 128) don't appear on any of my 1920's German camera store catalogues. But Wikipedia lists these two as formats particular to Ensign cameras - these formats may have been popular enough on the British market to make a special holder size for export.

I have done some measurements of the spool and 129 is the closest thing I see on the chart linked by buzzardkid above. I will show some photos of the measurements and a couple of other things I thought were a little different a little later.

Thanks all for your input. It has been a help. That's RFF.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't think it was military issue - it looks far too light weight. I had a box camera, once, that came in a very similar bag but was rather smaller. Could it be a case for the Brownie Target Six-16?

I haven't seen one for the Six-16, but it could be. Even though sort of light weight, it is small, and I have seen small canvas holders that were also somewhat light weight. But you may well be correct. I surely don't know and you have had some personal experience with lightweight camera bags that I haven't.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.

 

[oftheherd]

More photos as promised

More photos as promised

Here are some more photos of the film holder.

This is the reel itself, on a ruler, to see its total width, as well as an indication of the film width. I don't know that it exactly matches anything in the list that Buzzarkid gave the URL for. But the closest seems to be 129.

This shows the length of the area of film.

And this is the width of the area of film.

This is the film roll on end. Note the rectangular tab on the end. That fits into the roll film holder. The film advance can only turn one way and it must be rotated so it is parallel with the film plane for the roll to be released. There is a tab only on one end. I didn't recall, but 127 roll film holders are the same, and just slightly less long than the one here. I think one might be able to bend the flanges inward enough to use 127, but I don't intend to try it (at least not at this time).

This shows the portion that the film goes on. You can see the slots in the flanges. You may be able to make out the area of the film advance that accepts the slot in the roll film holder.

Hope this shows well what I have, should anyone else get something like this as well. It has been a curiosity to me. Again I thank everyone who responded. There is so much knowledge here on RFF. It is awesome.

Now I have to worry about getting some inserts for the cut film holders. If my acquaintance can make the small ones, hopefully he can also make them for some 9x12 holders I have.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't know that I will ever use the roll film back. But it aroused my curiosity, assuming it is indeed 127. B&H sell it, but at $15.49 a pop, I won't be buying much. But a google search brought up the 3 links below that others with 127 cameras might be interested in. I might even try cutting some down myself, especially if I can figure out a better way to mark the paper back, and manufacture a 127 reel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-HLR-k_qOE&feature=youtu.be

http://www.brownie-camera.com/articles/petelutz/use-120-film-in-116-616-camera.shtml

http://www.mike-steel.com/2012/11/re-spooling-127-film/

 

[tunalegs]

It is an old 127 spool. I have several that look just like that.

Some plastic adjustable reels have a 127 setting too.