What film size did this take?

[Mr_Flibble]

The reel struck me as being for 127 format as well. I recently CLA'd an early VPK with similar 3 part spools inside.

But the comparison photo with the 120 spool gives me reason to doubt this conclusion somewhat. Looks a little too tall. I'll have to compare a couple of spools when I get home today.

 

[sevo]

The reel struck me as being for 127 format as well. I recently CLA'd an early VPK with similar 3 part spools inside.

But the comparison photo with the 120 spool gives me reason to doubt this conclusion somewhat. Looks a little too tall.

127/128/129 were part of a Kodak all-metal spool series that shared the same overall construction and only varied the spool width (and on the larger formats, diameter).

 

[oftheherd]

The reel struck me as being for 127 format as well. I recently CLA'd an early VPK with similar 3 part spools inside.

But the comparison photo with the 120 spool gives me reason to doubt this conclusion somewhat. Looks a little too tall. I'll have to compare a couple of spools when I get home today.

127/128/129 were part of a Kodak all-metal spool series that shared the same overall construction and only varied the spool width (and on the larger formats, diameter).

Thanks both of you for your input.

Mr_Flibble, I think I may have taken the photos a little too close with a digital P&S, and caused some distortion.

sevo, I am pretty convinced the holder I have is a 127 spool, unless someone, perhaps Mr_Flibble, can positively show otherwise. Searching ebay though, I was surprised to find some apparent (and so listed) 127 spools that were almost certainly wooden, and slotted on both ends. My metal spool is only slotted on one end, for use by the wind mechanism.

 

[sevo]

Searching ebay though, I was surprised to find some apparent (and so listed) 127 spools that were almost certainly wooden, and slotted on both ends.

121 perhaps? That was like 120, except for being as wide as 127.

 

[tunalegs]

If it is 127, 127 is 46mm wide. So there should be at least 46mm between the spool flanges. That'd be the easy way to tell. 127 never came with a wooden core, the early spools have an aluminum spindle, later ones are all steel.

 

[farlymac]

Now you need to hang out at the flea markets and junk stores for a supply of reels (buying cheap plastic cameras no one wants).

PF

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Alright, just compared the photos above with a 127 spool.

The backing paper on 127 film is 1-3/4th" wide. So your spool is definitely for something a little bigger.

 

[oftheherd]

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

Ernst

I think you and others who opined my roller to be 129 are correct. See the photos below.

The spool in question along with a roll of 127. I had forgotten I had this Efke IR roll when I first posted, and thought I mentioned it with a photo before, but didn't.

Both spools against a (Chinese cheap) caliper, 1/16 inch scale.

Both spools agains a caliper, 1/32 inch scale.

Using the charts from the URLs given on the first page, 129 must be it. I guess I am out of luck unless I use the cigar cutter or the make-shift tool here: http://www.mike-steel.com/2012/11/re-spooling-127-film/ and the paper back marking from here: http://www.frugalphotographer.com/Publications/Re-spooling 127 film.pdf

Thanks again to everyone for commenting. Hopefully with the comments, charts and photos, someone in the future can get some help from the thread. I certainly have.