Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Fog Vs Haze

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    387

    Default help

    Is this a fog or a haze machine.. At first I thought it was a Hazer (because of the name) but it looks like they are just selling this fog machine as a hazer.

    http://www.allprosound.com/catalog/p...%20-%20HZ-1000

    I'm convinced it's really a fog machine.
    - instinct

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S.E. Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by instinct View Post
    Is this a fog or a haze machine.. At first I thought it was a Hazer (because of the name) but it looks like they are just selling this fog machine as a hazer.

    http://www.allprosound.com/catalog/p...%20-%20HZ-1000

    I'm convinced it's really a fog machine.
    It sure looks like a hazer. I have never seen one that cheap. If it is a true hazer its a great deal.
    "Gravity its not just a good idea its the law"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North West England
    Posts
    1,148

    Default

    One of the main differences between an hazer and a fogger is the output.
    Hazers have fans in them to help get the haze airborne.

    Jim

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Its a fogger, the primary difference is the the way the dissusion is made, a fogger takes a waster based fog fluid and heats it, and then pumps it through a small orifice nozzle producing the classic high pressure jet of fog. A hazer does not use a heater at all, instead it uses a compressor and a fan to atomize an oil based fluid. once the oil is atomized, it is blown out of the machine with a fan. Haze is a very evenly distributed type of diffusion, the best way to describe haze is to think of using a fog machine in an area with a fan, turning it off, and coming back 15 minutes later after most has settled/distributed, and it is evenly distributed (no areas of more dense fog), no smoke effect. The upside to haze is that because it is oil based and not a thermal effect (that will settle when it cools), it has a VERY long hang time, it can hang for up to an hour after machine is turned off. will give excellent visibility to lasers. The downsides of haze are that since it is oil based, when it does eventually settle, it leaves a residue film on surfaces. It takes substantially longer to haze an area than a fogger can do it, ie if you need to create a diffusion effect in a matter of 5 seconds, a fogger is the way to go, and if you want to get rid of the haze, it takes much longer, also tunnel effects and liquid sky effects can appear "boring" under haze alone, becuase it will look like a perfect sheet of light, and not have the smoke interfereing with the beam causing the cool effect. Its really a matter of preference, when you are in a dimly lit room, and you use haze, hardly anyone will even realize it, until you turn on lights/lasers, sometimes you don't want to give the appearance of smoke/fog in a room, thats where a hazer is good.

    -illuzion

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North West England
    Posts
    1,148

    Default

    Well over here our haze fluid is water based.
    I have both hazers and a fogger.
    The hazers both have heaters (very simular to the fogger but at a lower temp), the main difference is the fans.
    Also foggers are reknown over here for the oily residue that they leave.

    Jim

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH, USA
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I would be reluctant to call that a fogger (that HZ-1000). I actually own one of these; got it very cheap off of ebay and wanted to try,and it is indeed a haze machine. This sucker will fill my warehouse in about 15-20 minutes with a nice haze, and is probably cheaper because it uses that heating element. The only problem is the dutycycle, which although is enough to fill my warehouse, still exists, which I am lead to believe that most non-heater hazers don't really have. If there is not a ton of ventilation in the room (fans everywhere, for instance) this thing works great, but I haven't had the opportunity to try it in an area with significant airflow. Only then would I start to believe that this would not be nearly as good as a conventional hazer, which has the benefit of going all the time. This one usually goes 1min on, 1min off continuously (or timed, if you so prefer).

    As for the base, most things around here are waterbased, both hazers and foggers, so I think it would be rather silly to classify them based on their intake, and think it would be more appropriate to classify them based on the output you get.

    And it is definitely a hazer. You don't even see output fog from this sucker.

    I do agree that oil lasts longer, but the same effect is created nonetheless whether you use a water-based or oil-based hazer.
    Last edited by BoomDog; 03-03-2007 at 11:39.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,478

    Default

    I think the only important distinction is in particle size, the really small particles being haze.

    If a fog machine operates with a combination of strong heat and pressure, it can make finer particles, one of the things that makes the old Martin 700's still well-liked, as their fog is fine and dry-feeling and there's a lot of it for such a small machine. The stuff is mostly fog but there is enough really fine particulate to make haze as well, lasting for up to two hours, not bad for a water based fluid in a machine not called a hazer. I think it's a glycol based fluid. I use stuff that Maplin sell, it works well, no clogging, and no residue except after heavy use in small space.

    Compressor based oil 'cracking' is used for really fine particulates, without larger ones. I don't know how much mineral oil is put into the air, but I suspect it's a greater health hazard than a glycol based fogger. Both types can make haze, but hazers do it better, and without the heavy fog droplets.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    508

    Default

    The HZ-1000 is a fogger with a different heating chamber to generate finer particles closer in size to a low-end hazer. I have one and I like it. Mainly because I can dilute fog juice and run it for pennies... Important since I tend to leave the room hazy when I'm working... It is NOT a hazer in the conventional sense, for example it requires a warm-up period. One annoying problem is that it likes to pee on the floor (if you forget to check and empty the catch-sponge after each session)... but then again the DF-50 Hazer we use also pees everywhere and costs $60/gallon to operate...

    A problem we're running into a lot recently is that even the DF-50 has fallen out of favor with venues, which necessitates renting a MDG Atmosphere... which are nice units, but are pricey enough and requires enough upkeep that I haven't considered buying one... (you have to constantly get the CO2 tanks refilled) Personally I *like* the haze out of a DF-50 over an atmosphere, but a lot of people don't like to see the haze.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    387

    Thumbs up cool

    thanks a lot guys, I think this will be sufficient for what I need.
    - instinct

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    387

    Default ....

    so i am going to pick up this fazer tomorrow... anyone have any suggestions on what brand of fog/haze fluid to use.. it says it can take any water based fog or haze fluid.
    - instinct

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •