Just how wide is 125 rollfilm anyway?

[shalom_septimus]

<p>Background: I've been cutting down 105mm microfiche for some old cameras that are in my collection. I recently acquired a Seneca 3A Box Scout. Someone had helpfully (?) painted on the bottom in silver "Use 122 Film". I tried that, but it's too narrow and falls into the middle. I have since found out that this notation is incorrect; that despite being labeled 3A, this is really a 3B, or 125 film, which has the same image size as 122 but a longer spool. (Exactly like 118 vs. 124.)</p>

<p>So I went and looked up the spool sizes. There's one source (an ad in Shutterbug circa 1985) which gives the actual length, which is claimed to be 3.992". Every other source on the net seems to be copied from this one (including the table which I've been adding to the pikiwedia Film Format page).</p>

<p>Using this datum, I made me some spools. This was simple enough: saw a 122 or 118 metal spool in half (I've got a couple extra of these), cut a piece of 7/16" dowel to the right length, cut a slot in it the long way with the slotting saw left over from my previous life as a locksmith (intended for cutting wards on mailbox keys, I put it in an arbor and chucked it in my drill.) drilled round holes at each end, filed a slot over one of the holes, slide it into the core of the two halves of the cut spool, double-check the length and glue it in place.</p>

<p>I checked with a dial caliper, it's right on at 3.992 just like the thing said. Worked fine, except for one thing: it's too long. Can't close the camera body with the spools in place, and the paper which I cut<em> exactly </em>to fit the spools is too wide for the film gate.</p>

<p>I took the dial caliper and measured the width between the rails where the film/paper has to go. I measured it at 3.912", not 3.992". Look at the list, and whaddaya know, that's exactly the length of a 103 spool . . .</p>

<p>So my question is, has anyone actually measured the length of a 125 spool? Or is everyone simply copying data which may have been incorrect in the first place? Am I really the first person since 1985 to actually try to use 125 film? And most importantly, did 125 and 103 share a spool, like 122 and 124?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The 103 format was really rather popular, so it's more likely that 103 is the right size.  125 size is very oddball.  What is the size of the film gate on the camera?</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

3 1/4 X 5 1/2. Scroll down this - http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html - web page.

[shalom_septimus]

<p>Actual film gate is 3.285" by 5.345", or pretty close to 3-1/4 by 5-1/2.<br>

Here's a list of Sen-X film showing what cameras used which sizes. This brand of film was made (or at least marketed) by the same company that made the camera, from their 1921 catalog (source: http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs.htm , which I strongly recommend to look at only when you have a couple hours to burn). Seneca's film numbers were Eastman's multiplied by 3, so their equivalents to 122 and 125 were 366 and 375 respectively. The 3A Box Scout is shown here as using 375.</p>

<p>(And now I wonder. There seems to be a pattern here. #3 rollfilm cameras used 118, #3 box cameras used 124, which is the same image size on longer spools, same as 122 and 125. Maybe box cameras needed more space around the image for some reason: longer film path maybe.)</p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I am so jealous of those Seneca catalogs.</p>

<p>Here is a 1914 catalog page from Willoughby's showing Kodak and other USA film manufactures numbers and film size.</p>

<div></div>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>(Apparently the numbers changed in 1921; the 1920 catalog still shows Eastman numbers.)</p><div></div>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>Well I just scored a roll of what is supposed to be 125 on that auction site. (See item 171028058185 if you're interested.) The photos don't show the actual film number, and I have my doubts as to whether it really is 125 because the end view shows the three dimples around the axle hole. As far as I know only 101 and 103 had those holes. I suppose I'll find out when I receive it, at which point I'll get out the ol' dial caliper and measure it for posterity.</p>

<p>I probably should have pointed out to the seller that it's illegal to send nitrate film through the postal service, but oh well.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>It would be great if we could still get 5x4 from roll film!</p>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>I'm working on it. Just let me get a door on my darkroom (so the dark doesn't leak out) and I might start making some. In the meantime you could try Film For Classics, if he's still around, and see if he has any 123 rollfilm in stock.</p>

<p>So the 125 arrived today, and yes, it does say 125-6 on the part that was facing away from the lens when the seller took the photo. And what do you know, it's actually spooled on a 103 spool, you can tell because it's drilled right through for a removable winding key like the old Bullets used to have. I measured it, and the flanges aren't exactly parallel (probably got bent at some time, as this thing is certifiably ancient: there's faint printing on the band that says "Develop before Sept. 1, 1912") but the narrowest spot is 3.9125", which is exactly the published length for a 103 spool.</p>

<p>I'd like to change the chart on the wikipedia page (which I mostly wrote anyway) to reflect this, but they don't allow changes based on personal research. OTOH, referencing web pages is OK, so I'm posting this here and then using it for a source to edit the WP page. So there. :-p</p>

<p>At some point I'm gonna unspool this and measure out the markings on the backing paper, like I did in my other threads with the specifications. Thinking about shooting the roll first as I hate wasting film, but given that it expired 101 years ago, it probably would be fogged solid by now.</p>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>Well, I tried loading it into the 3A Scout, and it wasn't useable. The paper is kind of stiff, but worse, when I tried winding it on, the film itself disintegrated. The emulsion (thick, yellow, opaque) separated from the base (thin, yellowed, clear) and cracked/tore in a few places. I stuck an inch or so of the base, minus the emulsion, in the sink and lit it: woosh. Nitrate for sure. That was fun.</p>

<p>But here's the interesting part: The film is not the full width of the backing paper. One end of it (the side without the keyslot) goes almost to the edge, but the other end is about a quarter inch short of the edge. Paper is 3.892", which is 0.020" short of the length of the spool, but the film itself came to about 3.53". This is more or less the same width as 122, just in a wider backing paper.</p>

<p>I'll measure the markings and post them in a new thread. Earlier threads are here: <br>

118: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PXOZ<br>

122: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PZhG<br>

124: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PXOF<br>

130: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00TMHa</p><div></div>

[chauncey_walden]

<p>Ilford has announced 3.5 inch x 50 feet HP5 (122/125) in this year's ULF release. Stock up!</p>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>I intend to, thanks. They've still got it listed as 82.55mm which is too narrow, but Simon said he'd get the correct measurements before cutting it. I think someone at APUG was offering to send him a sacrificial roll of real VP122 to measure against.</p>