Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Production Notes: Haze Machines
Nevada Film Office: What Are Haze Machines and How Are They Different From Fog Machines?
Haze machines, also known as hazers, are used for creating atmospheric haze, which help make light beams more visible, soften colors, and decrease contrast.
9 comments:
Sebastian A
said...
Ah atmospherics I love you. I have always loved you, since the 6th grade science fair project on fog machines you have been my favourite part of stage effects. Oh haze machines, how I hate you. My tight fisted high school never turned off the fire alarms during musical and did the fog set off the alarm? No it was the damn hazers. Because of that we could not use the cool fog effects. I do not think we used oil based hazers though. I feel like the oil would get over everything, kind of like how when you cook bacon a lot in your house in a skillet overtime the grime from the airborne grease collects on cabinets and ceilings. Also I think haze can be overused sometimes, when I went to see some of the playground pieces I felt like I was instantly being suffocated by the amount of haze in the theatre. I have many feelings.
I have done quite a bit of research on this subject, trying to find machines and fluids that comply with various parties’ requirements. Many performers will swear that there is a stinky haze and an odorless haze, and they always demand the odorless haze. In my experience, all haze has an odor if it is thick enough, but performers only notice it if it is thick at stage level. The second party I have had to negotiate with is, of course, designers. Different fluids move differently through the air and dissipate at different rates (I will not get started on differences between machines). It can be very difficult to consistently meet the expectations of designers, as air moves very differently through venues from one day to the next. Meanwhile, there are many venues that forbid the use of haze due to their fire detection and suppression systems. At that point, you can either argue for a quick-dissipating haze, which will not satisfy anyone, or you can look for a fog solution. It will probably not achieve an acceptable effect, and it will probably be quite expensive.
Haze machines are the Pinterest fairy lights of the atmospheric machines. I know lighting designers love them because they can isolate light beams in mid-air, adding levels and elements of texture and light to a stage. Personally, I love them. I think they are perfect for dramatic moments, concerts, dance, and anything that needs to draw attention to the space and not just the movement on stage. However, I’ve had a lot of difficulties with them. During my last dance concert, we used a haze machine and the haze got stuck under the cyc and triggered the fire alarm. I’ll tell you one thing, there’s nothing like an unexpected fire alarm to get people out of their seats. I think the technology has come a long way, but there are still glitches that need to be fixed. I also think companies need to rethink the longevity of their haze machines. I know that they have the potential to last a while, but they are so finicky and constantly need maintenance to keep them functioning the right way. They are fairly safe these days, but you don’t want to risk the fir curtain coming down in the middle of a show because of a false fire alarm.
Haze is something that I definitely have a love - hate relationship with. Although they often serve to emphasize lighting effects, I feel that fog and haze are both tools that are way overused in this industry. I have interacted with fog and haze effects as both a crew member and an audience member. In many of these interactions, I find that the effect irritates my lungs, sending me into a coughing fit that prevents me from doing my job or enjoying the show. As such, I hold a general grudge against fog and haze effects, even though I can recognize the artistic value that it brings to the table. However, I do have some fond memories from high school of jury rigging a fog machine into a hazer (as hazers are very cost prohibitive) by piping the exhaust through a cooler, of the variety one might see while tailgating, full of ice. We experimented with different lengths and widths of pipe, as well as various meshes and diffusers at the end of the system.
Haze machines are genuinely the source of some of the greatest mid-tech debates I have ever seen. Getting to the final look is a truly arduous task because everyone has to agree or they can’t possibly go on. Actors and house managers comment on the smell, designers want it to move and settle in a specific way, directors always seem to have strong opinions on it’s presence, and still, above all of that, it is impossible to predict how the haze will behave when there is actually a full audience. The reality of theatre is it is possible to tech everything perfectly, but, the second the house is full, so many things will behave differently. Any sort of atmospheric effect, audience participation, the movement of anything suspended in the air really cannot be predicted. It is complicated further by the idea that the house will not always be filled to the same capacity, so planning for a full house isn’t even going to cover all of the things that can and will change. It is one of the most difficult things to get artists to settle for less than perfect, but, I am afraid, at least for the time being with the technology available, this will be an ongoing problem.
Hazers seem to be a very contentious topic of debate at the Carnegie Mellon School of Drama. And personally, I do not believe that they are that controversial. Haze is a tool to help a designer execute their idea. However, I think that we here very frequently overuse haze, as a school. Half the time that I walk into the Chosky, it’s like someone decided that this show took place in a cloud. Haze in our school is often too overwhelming in quantity, and I think that some people often underestimate how far a little haze can go. Haze and hazers absolutely have their place in theatre and lighting design, but I do not think that they need to be as-in your face as they often are at CMU. Nor do I think that they really need to be utilized in every single mainstage at Carnegie. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues into the future.
I am glad I read this article. If only I had read it three years ago before my friend in high school, also our lighting designer, completely roasted me for not knowing the difference between haze and fog. Now that I go to school at the one and only Carnegie Mellon School of Haze, I feel this is an important piece of information I should keep in my mind. While I feel as though I choke on haze at least once every two weeks here, I know how much it can positively impact a lighting design for any show. I have a few questions: Can people have allergic reactions to the oil based haze? How does one use haze without hurting audience members with asthma or other respiratory problems? How do theatres individually adjust stage vs house temperature to keep their haze and/or gof on the stage and out of the seats?
We joke fairly often about attending the “Carnegie Mellon School of Haze”, maybe unfairly. Haze, when used right, can absolutely enhance a show, particularly the lighting effects. By making beams more visible, it allows lighting designers to create more striking effects, and adds to the overall effect of many simple looks. But when audience members walk into a theater and instantly choke on haze, something has gone wrong. Haze is a useful tool, but it shouldn’t be a given that haze will be present in any given show. I liked that the article clearly explained how haze worked- until now, I’ve been aware of the practical difference between haze and fog, but never actually researched the science behind why the two atmospherics act so differently. The usage and over-usage of haze is apparently a controversial topic here in the School of Drama; my opinion, for what it’s worth, is that it should be used when necessary to elevate designs, but that we should limit the amount in any given space. If people come out commenting on the amount of haze, or really commenting on the haze at all, we’ve done something wrong.
We all know that the Carnegie Mellon School of Haze loves their atmospherics. While I can not say that I learned much from this article, it is fun to read about how people differentiate between hazers and fog machines. From experience, a fog machine can be used as a hazer if you pump the correct amount of fluid from the right location. However, that effect can not compete with the performance of a hazer. I am surprised to read that hazers still run at a much higher price point than fog machines, the technology is fairly similar and the use of the machines is so widely applied. On the point of synthesis, I am curious to see how the atmospheric industry is affected by the rise of projection media in the show. Haze and other atmospherics compete with media designers desire for bright colors and high contrast. I would like to see the industry innovate these technologies so haze can benefit lighting while also staying out of the way of media content.
9 comments:
Ah atmospherics I love you. I have always loved you, since the 6th grade science fair project on fog machines you have been my favourite part of stage effects. Oh haze machines, how I hate you. My tight fisted high school never turned off the fire alarms during musical and did the fog set off the alarm? No it was the damn hazers. Because of that we could not use the cool fog effects. I do not think we used oil based hazers though. I feel like the oil would get over everything, kind of like how when you cook bacon a lot in your house in a skillet overtime the grime from the airborne grease collects on cabinets and ceilings. Also I think haze can be overused sometimes, when I went to see some of the playground pieces I felt like I was instantly being suffocated by the amount of haze in the theatre. I have many feelings.
I have done quite a bit of research on this subject, trying to find machines and fluids that comply with various parties’ requirements. Many performers will swear that there is a stinky haze and an odorless haze, and they always demand the odorless haze. In my experience, all haze has an odor if it is thick enough, but performers only notice it if it is thick at stage level. The second party I have had to negotiate with is, of course, designers. Different fluids move differently through the air and dissipate at different rates (I will not get started on differences between machines). It can be very difficult to consistently meet the expectations of designers, as air moves very differently through venues from one day to the next. Meanwhile, there are many venues that forbid the use of haze due to their fire detection and suppression systems. At that point, you can either argue for a quick-dissipating haze, which will not satisfy anyone, or you can look for a fog solution. It will probably not achieve an acceptable effect, and it will probably be quite expensive.
Haze machines are the Pinterest fairy lights of the atmospheric machines. I know lighting designers love them because they can isolate light beams in mid-air, adding levels and elements of texture and light to a stage. Personally, I love them. I think they are perfect for dramatic moments, concerts, dance, and anything that needs to draw attention to the space and not just the movement on stage. However, I’ve had a lot of difficulties with them. During my last dance concert, we used a haze machine and the haze got stuck under the cyc and triggered the fire alarm. I’ll tell you one thing, there’s nothing like an unexpected fire alarm to get people out of their seats. I think the technology has come a long way, but there are still glitches that need to be fixed. I also think companies need to rethink the longevity of their haze machines. I know that they have the potential to last a while, but they are so finicky and constantly need maintenance to keep them functioning the right way. They are fairly safe these days, but you don’t want to risk the fir curtain coming down in the middle of a show because of a false fire alarm.
Haze is something that I definitely have a love - hate relationship with. Although they often serve to emphasize lighting effects, I feel that fog and haze are both tools that are way overused in this industry. I have interacted with fog and haze effects as both a crew member and an audience member. In many of these interactions, I find that the effect irritates my lungs, sending me into a coughing fit that prevents me from doing my job or enjoying the show. As such, I hold a general grudge against fog and haze effects, even though I can recognize the artistic value that it brings to the table. However, I do have some fond memories from high school of jury rigging a fog machine into a hazer (as hazers are very cost prohibitive) by piping the exhaust through a cooler, of the variety one might see while tailgating, full of ice. We experimented with different lengths and widths of pipe, as well as various meshes and diffusers at the end of the system.
Haze machines are genuinely the source of some of the greatest mid-tech debates I have ever seen. Getting to the final look is a truly arduous task because everyone has to agree or they can’t possibly go on. Actors and house managers comment on the smell, designers want it to move and settle in a specific way, directors always seem to have strong opinions on it’s presence, and still, above all of that, it is impossible to predict how the haze will behave when there is actually a full audience. The reality of theatre is it is possible to tech everything perfectly, but, the second the house is full, so many things will behave differently. Any sort of atmospheric effect, audience participation, the movement of anything suspended in the air really cannot be predicted. It is complicated further by the idea that the house will not always be filled to the same capacity, so planning for a full house isn’t even going to cover all of the things that can and will change. It is one of the most difficult things to get artists to settle for less than perfect, but, I am afraid, at least for the time being with the technology available, this will be an ongoing problem.
Hazers seem to be a very contentious topic of debate at the Carnegie Mellon School of Drama. And personally, I do not believe that they are that controversial. Haze is a tool to help a designer execute their idea. However, I think that we here very frequently overuse haze, as a school. Half the time that I walk into the Chosky, it’s like someone decided that this show took place in a cloud. Haze in our school is often too overwhelming in quantity, and I think that some people often underestimate how far a little haze can go. Haze and hazers absolutely have their place in theatre and lighting design, but I do not think that they need to be as-in your face as they often are at CMU. Nor do I think that they really need to be utilized in every single mainstage at Carnegie. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues into the future.
I am glad I read this article. If only I had read it three years ago before my friend in high school, also our lighting designer, completely roasted me for not knowing the difference between haze and fog. Now that I go to school at the one and only Carnegie Mellon School of Haze, I feel this is an important piece of information I should keep in my mind. While I feel as though I choke on haze at least once every two weeks here, I know how much it can positively impact a lighting design for any show. I have a few questions: Can people have allergic reactions to the oil based haze? How does one use haze without hurting audience members with asthma or other respiratory problems? How do theatres individually adjust stage vs house temperature to keep their haze and/or gof on the stage and out of the seats?
We joke fairly often about attending the “Carnegie Mellon School of Haze”, maybe unfairly. Haze, when used right, can absolutely enhance a show, particularly the lighting effects. By making beams more visible, it allows lighting designers to create more striking effects, and adds to the overall effect of many simple looks. But when audience members walk into a theater and instantly choke on haze, something has gone wrong. Haze is a useful tool, but it shouldn’t be a given that haze will be present in any given show. I liked that the article clearly explained how haze worked- until now, I’ve been aware of the practical difference between haze and fog, but never actually researched the science behind why the two atmospherics act so differently. The usage and over-usage of haze is apparently a controversial topic here in the School of Drama; my opinion, for what it’s worth, is that it should be used when necessary to elevate designs, but that we should limit the amount in any given space. If people come out commenting on the amount of haze, or really commenting on the haze at all, we’ve done something wrong.
We all know that the Carnegie Mellon School of Haze loves their atmospherics. While I can not say that I learned much from this article, it is fun to read about how people differentiate between hazers and fog machines. From experience, a fog machine can be used as a hazer if you pump the correct amount of fluid from the right location. However, that effect can not compete with the performance of a hazer. I am surprised to read that hazers still run at a much higher price point than fog machines, the technology is fairly similar and the use of the machines is so widely applied. On the point of synthesis, I am curious to see how the atmospheric industry is affected by the rise of projection media in the show. Haze and other atmospherics compete with media designers desire for bright colors and high contrast. I would like to see the industry innovate these technologies so haze can benefit lighting while also staying out of the way of media content.
Post a Comment