haze machines

[vera j]

Haze machines.....Best? Worst? What to look for / avoid?

Thoughts please.

[timsabre]

More information needed.... what are you using it for? How much money have you got?

[vera j]

Budget around £ 1500

Its a 700 seat thrust stage theatre

[timsabre]

DF-50 and Swefog 3000 are both well-respected oil cracker hazers but list price is a bit above your budget.

Jem/Martin have a new-fangled waterbased hazer out (Ready 365) which uses CO2 to make the haze finer, but that's listed at over £2000. I've had a play with it and it's an interesting idea if you want to avoid having oily residue all over everything, but you do need a CO2 cylinder which is a bit of a pain.

At a lower price range I've heard good things about the Look Unique hazer (water based) but never used one.

[IRW]

I don't know how much they go for nowadays, but I've always been pretty happy with the Le Maitre MVS whenever I've come across one!

 

Ian

[Ynot]

We looked around a bit when buying ours, and settled on the MVS as a good blend of cost vs performance.

If used right can give a decent low density haze quickly or a thickr density if required by upping volume/dropping fan speed.

Nice feature on the MVS is the remote controlled directional facility - can deliver the haze vertically, horizontally or anywhere in between on demand.

 

Fluid lasts for ages as well.

 

 

[csg]

I've said this before, and at the risk of repeating myself I can't recommend strongly enough that you look at the pea soup range. I have NO commercial interest here.

 

The phantom is an oil vaporising unit ( NOT a cracker, dry haze) that outperforms everything on the market, including swefogs / df50's / MDG atmospheres. It does need a Co2 supply though that can be a nuisance for some people - but if it is for use in one venue, one large VK gas bottle will give you weeks upon weeks of use, and the unit uses a tiny amount of very cheap oil (around £30 a gallon)

 

The dragon is a silent pump based water based unit that outputs the same particle size as the phantom, but without the Co2 supply. These machines offer exceptional even and well hanging haze that I have never seen other machines even get close to. Again, fluid usage is slight, and cheap. These units do require an external fan though.

 

We stock both machines, as well as various Le Maitre, Jem and Antari and to be frank, there is no competition...

[top-cat]

I never had any issues with a Look Solutions Unique 2 or Le Maitre MVS.

 

But I'm really into the HazeBase stuff, they're very economic, and the haze they put up is very invisible when unlit but makes for great beams once you have a lot of it hanging. I am using 2 "Base Hazer Pro" in a large theatre with heavy aircon and I still only have to run them on about 40% to keep a solid thick haze in the room. I don't know how common they are in the UK, the only company I know in the UK hiring them is PRG.

 

I'm not convinced how useful the rack mounting thing is... I can't think of many pieces of equipment I'd want to rack a hazer next to! I'd guess the idea was just racking them together for bigger output.

 

I think they are just around the 1500 GBP mark.

[niclights]

HazeBase and Look Solutions machines are essentially the same - both are manufactured by the same company. I would say either are the best for water/glycol.

 

I will second the recommendation for Pea Soup for mineral oil type.

 

 

Things to watch out for:

 

- Noise. All the water/glycol machines are effectively silent but mineral oil needs compressed air to work. Some machines (like the ReelFX DF50 and the Swefog) use an air compressor which is noisy. Others like the MDG Atmosphere and Pea Soup Phantom use CO2. These are silent but it's an extra consumable.

 

- Warm-up time. Water/glycol machines use a vaporiser which takes time to heat up. The Look Solution Unique's and the Hazebase machines are very fast (around 1 min) but this is unusual and often it can take much longer. Some mineral oil machines like the DF50 and Swefog don't have heaters and are instant, others like the Phantom do and take a while to get there. This might not matter but it might be something to consider.

 

- Variable density. The majority of water/glycol machines have adjustable output, achieved simply by pumping fluid faster or slower through the vaporiser. Typically mineral oil machines do not. However, the Phantom is one exception.

 

- Hang time/transparency/evenness. These can all be grouped into water/glycol versus mineral oil. Mineral oil machines work by forcing oil through a fine mesh making particles so small they hang in the air. The particle size varies by machine - DF50's are approx 1 micron while the Phantom is probably the finest at around 0.2 micron. The low density means it is relatively unaffected by air turbulence or ventilation systems and therefore can build to give a very even haze which will stay for a long time. The oil by nature is quite transparent and therefore does not cause much diffusion. In contrast water/glycol machines produce a white, high density particle (approx 20 micron). Because of this the effect tends to be more opaque, diffuses light more and is more susceptible to air movement making it harder to achieve even coverage. It will not hang around anything like as long as oil.

 

- Residue. Mineral oil will condense back to oil and therefore this residue is (IMO) their main con. It varies by machine but what goes up must come down (or rather get stuck in your fan cooled equipment ;) ). Water/glycol doesn't usually leave any residue, other than sometimes directly in front of the machine.

 

 

Unusually, your budget means you have the option of either water/glycol or mineral oil. If you want even, transparent haze that stays constant and the residue isn't a concern then go for mineral oil. If, on the other hand, you want a more visible haze and/or something that can be limited to just part of a performance then look at water/glycol.

[boswell]

Budget around £ 1500

Its a 700 seat thrust stage theatre

 

Are you sure about the above?

[S300]

A couple of Look solutions Unique 2's would suit the purpose quite sufficiently!

 

Used them frequently and have always been reliable and fairly economical.

[csg]

A couple of Look solutions Unique 2's would suit the purpose quite sufficiently!

 

Used them frequently and have always been reliable and fairly economical.

 

 

Yes, but do you like the haze quality? I find it lumpy, obtrusive and generally fairly poor. There are far better water based systems out there.

 

HazeBase and Look Solutions machines are essentially the same - both are manufactured by the same company. I would say either are the best for water/glycol.

 

I will second the recommendation for Pea Soup for mineral oil type.

 

 

Things to watch out for:

 

- Noise. All the water/glycol machines are effectively silent but mineral oil needs compressed air to work. Some machines (like the ReelFX DF50 and the Swefog) use an air compressor which is noisy. Others like the MDG Atmosphere and Pea Soup Phantom use CO2. These are silent but it's an extra consumable.

 

- Warm-up time. Water/glycol machines use a vaporiser which takes time to heat up. The Look Solution Unique's and the Hazebase machines are very fast (around 1 min) but this is unusual and often it can take much longer. Some mineral oil machines like the DF50 and Swefog don't have heaters and are instant, others like the Phantom do and take a while to get there. This might not matter but it might be something to consider.

 

- Variable density. The majority of water/glycol machines have adjustable output, achieved simply by pumping fluid faster or slower through the vaporiser. Typically mineral oil machines do not. However, the Phantom is one exception.

 

- Hang time/transparency/evenness. These can all be grouped into water/glycol versus mineral oil. Mineral oil machines work by forcing oil through a fine mesh making particles so small they hang in the air. - correct for the crackers like df50 only - both mdg and phantom machines use a vaporising block like water based machines, so the output is not an oil mist. The particle size varies by machine - DF50's are approx 1 micron while the Phantom is probably the finest at around 0.2 micron. The low density means it is relatively unaffected by air turbulence or ventilation systems and therefore can build to give a very even haze which will stay for a long time. The oil by nature is quite transparent and therefore does not cause much diffusion. In contrast water/glycol machines produce a white, high density particle (approx 20 micron). Because of this the effect tends to be more opaque, diffuses light more and is more susceptible to air movement making it harder to achieve even coverage. It will not hang around anything like as long as oil. The pea soup dragon machine mentioned above is both silent running ( medical type pump unit ) and produces a particle size similar to the phantom, so it is not true that all water based systems produce large particles.

 

- Residue. Mineral oil will condense back to oil and therefore this residue is (IMO) their main con. It varies by machine but what goes up must come down (or rather get stuck in your fan cooled equipment ;) ). Water/glycol doesn't usually leave any residue, other than sometimes directly in front of the machine. - not true for the phantom machines - their output is clean and dry as it is vaporised in the same manner as water based systems, not cracked. I have stocked the phantom machine for around 5 years now, and have used it in every environment including HD filming and where high power projectors are being used, There have been no residue problems as you would expect with crackers whatsoever.

 

 

Unusually, your budget means you have the option of either water/glycol or mineral oil. If you want even, transparent haze that stays constant and the residue isn't a concern then go for mineral oil. If, on the other hand, you want a more visible haze and/or something that can be limited to just part of a performance then look at water/glycol.

 

sorry for the pedantic corrections, but its good to be clear and correct if decisions are being made.

[S300]

Yes, but do you like the haze quality? I find it lumpy, obtrusive and generally fairly poor. There are far better water based systems out there.

 

I find them absolutely fine but it does depend on application and also the specifics of using them.

 

Sometimes I'll compliment them with an AF-1 and shove them further into the wings or high up and duct them down. That usually does the job quite nicely and suits a variety of applications.

[top-cat]

HazeBase and Look Solutions machines are essentially the same - both are manufactured by the same company. I would say either are the best for water/glycol.

 

 

Just because something is manufactured by the same company, it does not make it the same product!

 

Philips make profiles but they also make my shaver...

[cedd]

 

Just because something is manufactured by the same company, it does not make it the same product!

 

Philips make profiles but they also make my shaver...

And Yamaha make mixing consoles but they also make motorbikes and outboard motors! They're quite obviously different though! I don't see the point of your post. The OP isn't suggesting that two obviously different devices were the same, he's saying that the look solutions and hazebase devices (which look identical and do the same job (unlike a shaver and a profile, believe it or not)) are made by the same people.