ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I'm all for studio filming - control of what it's all about. You control the wind, rain, light, background, audio, whatever you want to control. You could get a bunch of greens in and a 6/18k head to give you a 'sun' if needed. Yes, you lose the drone shot, but the aerial view is a guy in the woods (you'll need a clearing to launch the drone) with a smoke machine, crew and generator chugging away for all it can - and you'll hit that quite quickly - like a few feet as they typically work with really wide shots for stabilisation. The drone will also create significant downdraught, which will ruin your fog shot anyway.

Your mileage may vary, but I think you'll have enough problems without compounding them working on location in all weathers, having to get a marquee production base, limited phone signal and internet, possible parking, catering, water and toilet, power, etc issues. If you get a reasonable studio, it may have a gantry/superior angle available so you can do that drone-style shot. But seriously with so much else going on, I'd be included to keep your life simple.

10 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Keep in mind that wind is its own beast. It sounds as if the characters will be fighting the wind and dust. That means a huge wind machine (think of your typical fan, but 6 feet in diameter with and airplane propeller as blades). That means that whatever you use for dust will be blown away, so there will have to be a constant feed of the stuff. You'll need a truckload! And remember, dust is like rain: you have to light the stuff to see it.

10 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I can't help with the particulate, but it sounds like you don't need a hazer, but a dense fog!

Hazers typically run cold, and throw large oil particles in the air to catch the light. You'd need a lot to create a dense fog, and that means a lot of oil in the air, and being large particles it settles quickly
Smoke machines (burnt glycols) are probably better - a hot machine will have a smaller particle size, and if you use good quality (ie not cheapo) fluid, it'll create a denser, longer cloud (the cheap stuff is more water is more steam than smoke). The downside is that it can be harsher on the eyes and throat - not a big deal in the dark in a club, quite important for cast who've got to deliver lines.
Finally, the best fog I think you can get, is hot oil. Instead of burning like the glycols, it atomises into very small particles meaning the fog hangs better so less oil in the air to affect lenses, the floor, etc. It's the most dangerous to use as you will spit out boiling oil at times (ie get someone who knows the kit), but medical grade mineral oil is smooth on the throat, only a few teaspoons worth to create a dense, lasting fog.

A hazer or domestic/party glycol smoke machine stands no chance of filling any decent size of studio, hot atomised oil works well in large spaces and even outdoors - which may give you some other useful options. PM me if you're in the SouthWest - I've a portable system which is just brilliant.

10 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Yay! I think the phantom is usually called a smoke system rather than hazer (smoke typically denser than haze, but hey), but it's certainly a good choice. It's a hot oil system, small particles, long hang-time, good choice.

Things to consider - outside, any breeze will disperse even fine particle oil smoke/haze, so you will need to run the machine quite a lot outside. That means running quite a lot of power. Just make sure you factor in the power rating for the generator.

The oil is medical grade, it can be expensive - you probably won't use nearly as much as a glycol-based system, but will likely need to buy the consumables at hire time.

If you can't run the generator to your site, you can get portable gas-powered units which are very convenient and produce similar amounts of smoke.

10 years, 9 months ago - Andrew Morgan

Doing this fully practical would be a nightmare - I'd suggest instead that you use a big ol' fan to blow the actors (and bear in mind all the dialogue if there is any will need to be looped 'cause of the noise) and 'dust up' the costuming/makeup so the actors look suitable battered (use spray adhesives on clothing) - then do the actual dust storm stuff as overlays in post.

I've used fake dust on set before using mizers and whilst it's great for creating a creepy, dusty set it can play havoc with equipment - that s**t gets in everything :)

10 years, 9 months ago - GJL GJL

I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that the dust element has to go. It will still be required in reasonable quantities for set dressing etc, but agreed, the amount needed for use with a fan would be excessive. Presumably there would also be an issue with dust and lights? I recall reading that many materials have been banned for film use as they are flammable.

It's £30 for 85mins worth of oil for the hazer. It will prove expensive as it will need to be running at the very minimum 4-5 hours a day for a week. It also looks like it will require a separate generator for this and the lighting. It's also recommended that a fan be used to control the smoke, although a ducting hose may well remove the need for this.

10 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Thanks Paddy and G. I've learned so much about smoke machines. I had no idea. Especially the cost! Yikes!

10 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Are you ever asking for a nightmare. The most common dust for film industry applications is Fuller's Earth, and there are others like Pyrolite. But for film applications, just about anything has been ground up for dust effects. You'll probably find something that is a combination of wheat flour, rice flour, and ground up nut shells called "Fuller's Earth", but that's not officially Fuller's Earth. Does anybody on your crew or cast have a nut allergy? Bad news for them. Do you want the death of a crew member with a nut allergy on your hands?

As Andrew mentions, bad sound and it gets in EVERYTHING. Make sure any gear you rent is spotless before you return it.

10 years, 9 months ago - GJL GJL

Hi,

Thank you both for the advice.

The idea is that the character is so enveloped in this dense cloud that he becomes lost within it. There would also be strong winds blowing the dust around to further emphasize the harshness of the environment.

To create a dust cloud on a large scale would, as you both say, be a nightmare. I had previously considered dust overlays composited in post, but am conscious of how effective/realistic this will look.The suggested practical approach was to use hazers to create an extremely dense fog which would be shot with a shallow depth of field, then to blow dust material nearer the lens (the camera would obviously need to be jacketed). The dust particles would need to be of a size that the camera could easily pick up, otherwise they would blend into the haze in the mid-background. If this method, or the use of overlays, cannot convey the density and hostility of the dust to a convincing degree, then I am shall amend the script and simplify the concept.

10 years, 9 months ago - GJL GJL

There is also the discussion of studio vs. location shoot for this project. Obviously the studio would offer far greater control of the practical effects, but the story is set in a woodland location. Despite the density of the cloud obscuring a lot of the scenery, for the sake of realism a location shoot would add a whole lot more to the look of the film. There is the potential for the free use of private woodland and drone photography, something that a studio shoot would not afford. Since the project relies on the cloud/fog/smoke effect, it is case of figuring the best way to realise this effectively before it can be developed further.

10 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Ouch - not a cheap effect. However when you're in studio, you will certainly not run the smoke continuously - it'll be dense from that machine, you might find you run it for a few minutes every hour or two. Something you need to confirm is with the generators - the kVA rating is not the same as the kW rating of the smoke machine, you likely need a genny rated about 20% higher. No, you shouldn't use the lighting genny, ideally. Again, seriously consider a mobile/gas powered option for instance http://www.smokemachines.net/buy-exterior-smoke-gun.shtml which may be an option.

My gas-powered portable system (not the one above, slightly different using cheaper gas but dearer fluid) could add a good heavy mist to an entire church crypt in under 30 seconds, it's a similar power to this unit in terms of volume of hot oil smoke. The fluid for it is about £25/l fwiw, and 2 weeks of INTs used a bit over a litre.

BTW just make sure - you may find all prices people have quoted are ex-VAT, so bear it in mind if budgeting :-)

10 years, 9 months ago - GJL GJL

Ideally, if it was a location shoot there wants to be as little sunlight as possible.

The private location isn't so much of an issue in terms of functioning as a production base, the woodland is in the grounds of a house where the crew would be staying. It would also allow access to build a set without incurring additional costs. The story is supposed to be set in a mountainous location, which this woodland could easily pass for, as it is on a steep hill. There are also a number of scripted scenes where the main character is on the ground on a woodland path, so if it were to be in a studio then both ground and greenery dressing would be required. The private location does have some large outbuildings that could be used to shoot interior for exterior by filling them with smoke if a failsafe was needed.

The budget for the project is moderate and it would definitely require the building of a set. Currently, both hiring a studio and building a set may beyond the means of the budget.

10 years, 9 months ago - GJL GJL

I spoke to a smoke machine company a couple of days ago regarding this, their recommendation is actually a hazer - a Phantom Turbo.

http://pea-soup.com/phantom.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvskYt3YH8s&list=UU__n6WrN0zP9dJc1wQBmJAA



It's oil-based, non-hydroscopic. Dependant on wind, the haze can hang in the air for up to four hours. The script is roughly 50% exterior, so minimising downtime by producing a fog that isn't going to dissipate too quickly is a priority. The fact that we would need it running for an extended period and mean we would need to consider crew safety.

On an additional note, if a rethink of the dust effect is in order, are they any ways in which to create the effect of ash falling?