Budget Hazer - any recommendations ?

[Barnaby Coote]

What would you recommend as a low cost but not too shabby haze machine ?

Something lightweight, that can fill a medium size room just enough to get a bit of atmosphere and background separation, without any visible clouds or particle grain (I already own a smoke machine).

Water based haze is new to me, any advantage over oil based ? Does it dissipate too quickly to be practical on set ?

[Andy Jarosz]

An Antari Z-350 would be my pick, a great machine, super portable, highly adjustable, and built to last. And not too expensive.

Most people would prefer the look of an oil based hazer, but if you ever plan to use this around SAG actors, it will have to be water based. Oil based hazers are also very expensive.

The trick is whatever level you set on the hazer will determine the thickness of the haze. Seems obvious, but it means a thinner haze will take longer to fill a room. Just something to keep in mind.

I like the fluid from Froggys Fog as an aftermarket option, and they have their own machines that are quite good as well.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Andy Jarosz

[Barnaby Coote]

Great, thanks ! I'll have a look at that machine.

I'm not in the US but I'm guessing water based is preferred for comfort and long term health concerns ?

What are the drawbacks to water based apart from cost ? Is it less smooth & even ?

[Andy Jarosz]

It's not so much that's less smooth or even, it's just more visible in thicker concentrations. An oil based hazer will create practically invisible haze that catches light beams. A water based one will create a, well, hazy atmosphere.

Water based haze can stick around a long time, but I've actually found the number one thing that affects it's longevity (aside from air conditioning) is people. If you have a party scene with 50 people all dancing, their heavy breathing will inhale that haze out of the air.

 

[Stuart Brereton]

On 1/25/2020 at 1:03 AM, Andy Jarosz said:

Most people would prefer the look of an oil based hazer, but if you ever plan to use this around SAG actors, it will have to be water based. 

I'm not sure that this is accurate. The relevant part of the SAG contract states that actors should be aware of safety precautions when working in smoke or haze, and that they have a right to see the MSDS for the products being used, as well as a right to fresh air breaks when necessary, but it doesn't outright ban any particular type of haze or smoke fluid.

The most commonly used haze, DF50, is a light mineral oil. The MSDS states that it is non carcinogenic, and safe to breathe under normal use.

The Contract Services safety bulletin does list which substances are banned and which are ok. Highly refined mineral oil (such as DF50) is ok to use, subject to the usual provisos of limiting exposure, etc, etc

[Phil Rhodes]

Is there some huge difference between what happens in the USA and here, then?

In the UK most of the stuff I've encountered (in live events, clubs, theatre and film) has been the same thing that goes in more or less all smoke machines (and vapes), which is a mixture of water and some sort of glycol, which is sort of oily but definitely not a mineral oil. Stuff designed to create haze rather than smoke is just watered down more, heated slowly in a low-capacity machine and blown through a fan. Ultrasonic crackers using actual oil went out some time ago, mainly because of the horrific mess they make.

[Andy Jarosz]

1 hour ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I'm not sure that this is accurate. The relevant part of the SAG contract states that actors should be aware of safety precautions when working in smoke or haze, and that they have a right to see the MSDS for the products being used, as well as a right to fresh air breaks when necessary, but it doesn't outright ban any particular type of haze or smoke fluid.

The most commonly used haze, DF50, is a light mineral oil. The MSDS states that it is non carcinogenic, and safe to breathe under normal use.

The Contract Services safety bulletin does list which substances are banned and which are ok. Highly refined mineral oil (such as DF50) is ok to use, subject to the usual provisos of limiting exposure, etc, etc

You're correct here, but it should be noted the allowed concentration of oil haze is less than water based. However--and this has been my personal experience over the last several years--studios set their own restrictions beyond what SAG does, and these almost always include the banning of oil haze.

Fox and Disney do ban mineral oil haze specifically. I'm almost always asked specifically to make sure fog/haze will be water based. This obviously really only matters for union shoots, if you're just making movies with friends, use any means you want ?

Here's a copy of the info from a Fox call sheet:
 

Quote

 

1. The following substances should not be used:
a) Known human carcinogens including any particulates of combustion,
including tobacco smoke (except where such smoke results from the
smoking of tobacco by an actor in a scene);
b) Fumed and hydrolyzed chlorides;
c) Ethylene glycol and Diethylene glycol;
d) Mineral oils;
e) Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons including petroleum distillates;
f) Hexachloroethane and Cyclohexylamine;
2. The following substances may be used:
a) Propylene glycol, Butylene glycol, Polyethylene glycol and Triethylene
glycol. Other glycol products should not be used (see c above);
b) Glycerin products [Caution: Glycerin and the listed glycol products should
not be heated beyond the minimum temperature necessary to aerosolize
the fluid. In no event should glycerin or glycol be heated above 700
degrees Fahrenheit];
c) Cryogenic gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, liquid nitrogen) may be used but
care must be exercised to avoid depleting oxygen levels, especially in
confined areas. Use care also to avoid adverse effects of cooled air on
exposed persons

 

Also of note here is polypropylene glycol is always banned as well, so be careful before using any of those new tiny foggers that are actually converted vapes.

52 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Is there some huge difference between what happens in the USA and here, then?

In the UK most of the stuff I've encountered (in live events, clubs, theatre and film) has been the same thing that goes in more or less all smoke machines (and vapes), which is a mixture of water and some sort of glycol, which is sort of oily but definitely not a mineral oil. Stuff designed to create haze rather than smoke is just watered down more, heated slowly in a low-capacity machine and blown through a fan. Ultrasonic crackers using actual oil went out some time ago, mainly because of the horrific mess they make.

Nobody uses crackers anymore, but an oil based hazer like a DF50 isn't a cracker--it's essentially a very, very fine spray nozzle that atomizes the oil.

 

 

[Stuart Brereton]

5 hours ago, Andy Jarosz said:

Here's a copy of the info from a Fox call sheet:

It seems like the Fox call sheet is taken word for word from the Contract Services bulletin, with the difference being that Mineral Oil is banned rather than allowed. The CS bulletin does specify "highly refined only", which DF50 is, according to the FDA, whereas Fox merely says Mineral Oil. Obviously, they've taken it upon themselves to implement rules that go beyond generally accepted safety guidelines. I would imagine that they've done that because of some possible legal exposure or financial implication, rather than any concern for human wellbeing ? 

[Andy Jarosz]

1 hour ago, Stuart Brereton said:

 I would imagine that they've done that because of some imagined legal exposure or financial implication, rather than any concern for human wellbeing ? 

I would imagine you're correct ?

I did a shoot for ABC earlier this year and they were *very* picky, banning even certain types of water based fluids. I don't think Radiance 7 fluid would fly with them, for example.

For me, if I'm investing in a hazer/fogger, it's important it meets as many of these criteria as possible so I can rent it and make my money back--but OP may not have any concern like this.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Andy Jarosz

[Barnaby Coote]

My main concern would be the look. I already have a water based smoke machine that I got a long time ago, a martin magnum 850, its smoke eventually turns into a somewhat heavy haze, but indoors it takes too long to even out, it's very hard to keep the level consistent between shots and there is always a bit of graininess to it.

How do water based hazers compare to the df50 ? Would one really be any better than the martin machine I already have ?

What about fire systems ? I've never used haze in a public building yet, but I've heard smoke detectors are getting much more sensitive than before. I'd always err on the side of caution and ask permission first, but does oil have more of a tendency to set systems off than water based ?

[Phil Rhodes]

Side note: I shot something years ago where lots of carbon dioxide was used, which drifted into pits below the working area and affected one of the people de-rigging lighting at the end of the night. This stuff does actually happen in the real world.

P

[Andy Jarosz]

2 hours ago, Barnaby Coote said:

My main concern would be the look. I already have a water based smoke machine that I got a long time ago, a martin magnum 850, its smoke eventually turns into a somewhat heavy haze, but indoors it takes too long to even out, it's very hard to keep the level consistent between shots and there is always a bit of graininess to it.

How do water based hazers compare to the df50 ? Would one really be any better than the martin machine I already have ?

What about fire systems ? I've never used haze in a public building yet, but I've heard smoke detectors are getting much more sensitive than before. I'd always err on the side of caution and ask permission first, but does oil have more of a tendency to set systems off than water based ?

Why not rent one and test it to find out?

Yes, they will set off fire alarms. Always check with your location about turning them off. They won't trip sprinklers, but they will set off alarms and smoke detectors no problem.

 

EDIT: Wanted to clarify a bit about water based hazers vs. foggers since they could be construed as the same thing, the main difference is how the fluid is introduced.

A fogger will pump fluid into a hot heat exchanger, the heat will rapidly boil the water in the fluid. The expanding gas creates pressure that forces the fluid out, vaporizing it. When in the air, the glycols in the fluid have a different refractive index than the air, bending the light that hits it and making it visible. That's why higher quality fog fluids have more "stuff" in them, they'll use multiple glycols with different refractive indicies, making the fog thicker.

A water based hazer relies on this same principle, but it also introduces an inline air pump in the fluid line as well as some kind of external fan. The inline air pump creates that pressure without relying on the vaporization of the fluid. This means less heat is transferred away from the heat exchanger and means the hazer can run for longer periods of time, usually indefinitely, without needing to stop and reheat. However, it means the vapor that comes out doesn't have as much "gusto" and can't travel very far without help. Thats' where the fan comes in, pushing the haze away from the machine, distributing it, and spreading it out.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Andy Jarosz