Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Can anyone recommend a great, but inexpensive HAZE machine?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

I have a fog machine, and it's great for certain effects, but I'm looking for a super fine mist haze machine that puts very, very long-lasting haze in the air just to show a bit of light coming through windows, stained glass, etc.

Anyone have a great recommendation on something that I can use to smoke up once and have it linger in the air for an hour or two?

Thanks.

Stephen
 
I use the Radiance haze generator, bought here:

http://www.djsproaudioandlighting.c...e=Ultratec+(formerly+LeMaitre)+Radiance+Hazer

It's $999 and a gallon (I believe) of fluid is an addition $100. Luckily, it takes forever to go through it. I'm still at about 80-90% full, after almost a year of frequent and heavy use.

Check out a tango video I shot using it: http://www.vimeo.com/7287907

It hangs for a long time, even with mild ventilation. Careful though, as it does set off smoke alarms if you use too much of it.
 
Matt Garrett said:
I've never seen a haze that stays around for a hour or two.
Click to expand...

Depends on the ventilation and room size, but to hang for an hour or more is a lot to ask. I'd average maybe 20-30 minutes at best.
 
Any issues with Haze or fog and messing with your elecronics and optics?
 
Hoffman said:
Any issues with Haze or fog and messing with your elecronics and optics?
Click to expand...

Haven't used enough fog to say anything about that, but the haze mist is so fine it won't even fudge up your lenses, let alone electronics.

I read somewhere that someone had cameras in a club which was hazed every night, and they needed a quick dustoff after over a year.

I would not worry at all about the haze.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
Anyone have a great recommendation on something that I can use to smoke up once and have it linger in the air for an hour or two?
Click to expand...
I was on the set of the special edition of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, when they were doing the inserts in Marina Del Ray for the inside of the mother ship. For that scene, they used mineral oil in the air, which created a long-lasting haze that would last many hours, which were necessary for the single-frame animation done in that (very non-digital) era of 1980.

Unfortunately, the mineral oil made the crew sick, smelled awful, left coats of grease on all the equipment, the lenses had to be cleaned twice a day, and it was a massive problem that took weeks to resolve. All this, for less than two minutes of new footage.

My advice: hire a great DP that knows how to get the most out of conventional fog machines and how to make them consistent over an entire shooting day. People have been using them for more than a quarter of a century, and lots of DPs and assistants know all the tricks to diffusion by now. (I'm reminded of CSI and CSI: Miami, which use heavy diffusion all the time, even on a TV budget. Same with 24, which looks beautiful.)
 
Use fine fuller's earth instead.
Click to expand...

Worst idea ever. You'll be breathing crap all day long, your lenses and all your equipment will covered in filth.

Hire a guy to sit there all day with a smoke machine and a fan, and a gallon of rosco fog fluid. That's how it's done.

Crack fogger/oil foggers, whatever you want to call them make a very fine mist that hangs for a long time, but I don't think anyone uses them anymore due to the breathing mineral oil all day long is not great for you.

Nick
 
I've been agonizing over this decision for months now - do I get a DF-50 hazer, or just get a water based fog machine and deal with constantly wafting the stuff all day? I cant stand the sight of the fog moving within the shot, which is almost impossible to avoid 100 percent, even if you are really patient. And nothign seems sillier then an entire crew and cast waiting in silence for some fog to be evenly dispersed. But coating everything (sets, people, clothes, LENSES) with a fine coat of mineral oil just doesn't seem smart.
 
I'm old enough to remember oil 'crackers' — they were cheap and easy to build, and mineral oil smoke has great hang time, but everything else about it SUCKS: smelly, slimy and sick-making. Early glycol/water based hazers were mostly big, expensive beasts best suited to arena rock concerts, but nowadays there are some good, small cheapies: the 1,000 seat theatre where I work recently hosted a touring band which brought the little Chauvet unit Andrew Gentle linked up-thread. Turned on an hour or so before showtime, it filled the air sufficiently to show off the beams of their intelligent lighting with no appreciable slime or stench on less than a gallon of cheap fluid.
 
Im also a little concerned that some of the non mineral oil ones might be too "invisible." I appreciate that beams become more defined in haze, but what I really crave is the sense of depth that the particles give you. I suppose its just the droplets picking up light, and that things farther from the camera have more of these droplets between them and the lens, like compressed atmosphere. Is there reason to think that water based machines will impart less of a sense of depth? I've never used a water based machine so this is all conjecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top