Is that an ancient Bencher copy stand I see there?
I recently contacted skier to purchase the copy box 2, and was directed to one of their distributors. For anyone interested, their taiwanese distributor is selling it for cheaper at 160usd. But according to the guy I spoke to, the copy box 2 is currently out of stock and theres a copy box 3 on the way. Any one has any information about this new iteration? Also, does anyone know the difference between the 1st and 2nd version? @nate @Richard1Karash
Thanks!
The wood on the box changed from #1 to #2. Bamboo for #2. The quite good film holders are unchanged.
There is still an issue that the wood shrinks, film holders get tight. That may be what they are working on for #3.
Exactly…that’s Bencher. I am super happy I got it. Amazing piece of equipment.
Yes it is a great tool. I used a Bencher copy stand from 1980 to 2012. The first eight years, I was a multi-image AV producer, copying thousands of yearbook pages for editor training workshops, along with lots of slide duplication and special effects work. The Bencher was key in all of that. I wore out a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor on my pin-registered F3 with that setup!
I used it off and on as I had eight other jobs at the same company, eventually using it heavily again with digital cameras from 2005 to 2012. I replaced the quartz peanut lighting system with two Westcott TD-5 Spiderlites with 27 Watt photo grade daylight fluorescent lamps in them, and two 32x24 inch softboxes with two layers of light diffusion. That got rid of all copy glare, by making everything a highlight.
Folks, If you can find them, used Bencher copy stands are awesome.
So apparently v3 now supports panoramic mf film, 6x12 is supported which isnt very appealing to me. But I have noticed that they have changed the light source here is some info from their website:
Copybox 2 Zen:
- 5600k
- 18w
- 97CRI
- 1250Lm
- 1 stage switch
Copybox 3 Panorama:
- 5500K
- 22W
- 94CRI
- 2600lm
- 3-stage switch (25%,50%,100%)
What do you think of these changes? Do you think it will still be a good light and a good product worth buying? I was going to buy the v2 but a retailer was out of stock and told me to wait for v3 but v3 is more expensive!
Not much I can say, except that they did a good job with the V1 and V2 light, which suggests they’ll make a good choice for this.
Brighter light is interesting change. The V2 light is bright enough; gives me ~1/100th 1:1 f/5.6 ISO 100.
I thought this was interesting as well, but most likely I doubt there will be any significant difference in the quality of light from the new panel. I am also surprised at the increase in brightness considering how bright V2 is (my current settings are ~1/320th, ISO 100, f/8).
Like you, I have no need for any of the “upgraded functionality” that comes with V3 as I only shoot standard 35mm and medium format up to 6x7, so I am lucky that a second-hand V2 popped up for sale just after Skier sold out of their crop of V2s and before they announced the V3 box.
Might be a long shot, but may be worth reaching out to them directly to see if they are able to sell you a V2 if they have any leftover parts/stock, or at least a V3 box with V2 holders if that’s an option.
Hi everyone.
Wondering if anyone had comparisons between Skier and Negative Supply gear?
Also do both systems allow you to include sprocket holes in ‘scans’? If so how much of the film borders is possible to include?
Thank you!
Fred HB
Hello everyone!
I’ve been reading this entire thread and others on this forum and i learned so much!
Until last week i never new CRI was a thing… But now looking to buy a light source i stumble upon TLCI score.
Is it important for film scanning ? Should i care ?
Thank you for your advice!
I searched the internet in order to find what TLCI score was and found an article that says a few things that might be it or not: https://www.gtc.org.uk/members-area/tlci-results.aspx
Halfway down the page is a table that I find very informative. It’d be interested in seeing something similar regarding CRI.
Yes this is it. It looks like TLCI important for color rendering in video recording… But does it matter for film scanning ?
Or am i really nitpicking here ?
I found this page with a huge database of CRI(Ra) CRI(Re) TLCI and some more color accuracy score for LED light source https://indiecinemaacademy.com/understanding-complete-led-database-testing-procedures/
I’m kinda overwhelmed with info right now…
Interesting page, thanks. According to those measurements, the highest light quality, dual-digit priced light is the Aputure Amaran AL-M9. I’d suppose that the light needs some extra diffusion layer(s) that will swallow some of the output.
Yea, definitely still interested in the v2, no need any of the pano functionality for now, but im not sure if they will continue to make v2s, hopefully they do, and not just offer the v3 from now!
I was wondering if it would make sense to set the screen of my ipad to some off-white color to offset the orange cast from the film to get more dynamic range in the reds (edit: i meant greens and blues)?
please be gentile with this newb to film scanning 
I’ve been asking myself this question and tried it by taking, with my iPad, a shot of the orange mask. Then, I inverted the shot and displayed it as a backlight.
I found that it made not much of a difference, also because contrast of negatives is relatively low. Although the blue channel gets less light, it is still good enough. ETTR can help too.
Interesting, what you did in using a picture of as a light source is quite smart, didn’t think of that. Can’t wait to play with my own scanning setup.
Hi! I have a Solux 4700k, but so far I can’t figure out how to get the most uniform diffusion on the negative. Who managed to get it with halogen bulb?
Try the following things separately or in combination To get a more evenly lit negative
- Move the bulb away from the negative
- Insert a diffuser between negative and bulb
- Indirect lighting: Shine the light on a white surface behind the negative
All of the above will require longer exposure. Intensity drops with the square of the distance, which means that doubling the distance will cost two stops approximately. Some of it can be equalized by shining the light through a tunnel that you could make from a can for instance.