MDG Atmosphere vs Ultratec Radiance

[@igorzhidkov1957]

Six years later and it is still the best comparison on whole youtube. Not only for specific models but in general water based vs co2 based. Thank you! And cool church by the way!

[@oshtheld]

Thanks for this video, Chris. We got an ATMe at my church a few weeks ago and are still trying to figure out how to run the hazer for optimal results. I will note that the website is 100% accurate in claiming the ATMe has the longest hang time. With our Radiance, we could run the haze output at 75% (on and off to keep a consistent level) for the first 25 minutes of our service(worship) and then shut off the haze after. About 10-15 minutes later, the haze level in the room will significantly have dropped. With our ATMe, we have the regulator for the c02 set at 50 PSI and do have to run the hazer much longer(at 100%) to get even close to the same level of haze saturation that we like. This will be done before the first service, and we'll briefly run the hazer intermittently during the first 10-ish minutes of the service. After that, the hazer will get shut off for the rest of the service. Even while practicing this method, we've noticed a considerable amount of haze will hang during the message(which people don't wan't.). After trial and error, I think it's just something that people will have to get used to and are not used to seeing during the message. The other frustration we're having is we feel like we don't see our beams from our moving heads as well. It's to the point where gobos might not be worth it:(. To be fair, we do have Mac 250 Entours which are extremely dated along with some Elation Platinum spot IIs. As you can see, we are trying to find a balance between running the hazer longer to try and see beams and gobos but now also have to be cautious with how much haze is left over in the room during the message. Other thing to note for anyone reading the be aware of how much C02 you go to. We have two five pounds tanks which the ATMe will suck through. We're looking at possibly getting a 75-pound or 50-pound C02 tank now. We skipped over the C02 consumption specs on the website. Anyway...we do like our new hazer but are still trying to figure things out to get optimal results...also it probably doesn't help that we have three giant LED walls!

[@DanielTesla74]

Thank you for the comparison. There are very few videos that really show what is what. The Radiance is nice but with the MDG you don't even notice the haze. I own a Look Unigue 2.1 which is good for the price but the MDG is from a different world (as well as its price :-)) )

[@reecemckillip3188]

Chris, this video is awesome. ACT should give you kickbacks for this detailed documentation. I will be using your doc links to expedite the conversation with our leadership.

[@ChrisMonson]

I'm glad it has been helpful for you!

[@lostproductionspdx]

Anyone have any comments on MDG vs DF50 for camera work?

[@jakefranczyk2532]

Thanks for posting this! did you guys have a preference after using either? In some of the shots it def seems like the MDG's particles provide a more clean look while still giving the lights the depth they deserve...but could be wrong.

[@ChrisMonson]

We definitely preferred the MDG Atmosphere visually. I added a link in the description to photo comparisons and a full write up with my thoughts and evaluations after our demo if you want to see more information.

[@jakefranczyk2532]

thanks much!!

[@rolobotoman]

cool comparison, thanks. At the same time American churches are so weird, I can't watch this without thinking WTF is going on over there.

[@ChrisMonson]

You’re welcome, I’m glad you found it helpful! And also, I can understand that sentiment. I certainly can’t speak for any other churches in the US, but what’s happening in this particular church is that peoples lives are being changed for the better, people in need are being helped and provided for, communities locally and worldwide are being supported, and people are loving Jesus. It seems to be working here, so we’ll keep at it until we find a way that works better 😀.

[@chadbeverly4926]

I definitely find that with radiance hazers it’s best to do an on/off method rather to keep them on . They are extremely powerfully outputting hazers. We own 2 and I run them fan at 100% and the haze between 5-10% with external fans . The air condition also plays a factor in it’s dispersion. I also find that with radiance the haze allows more light to pass through it which ends up intensifying the amount of light that comes to the camera , but it’s andoljrely fantastic for making light curtains . Though these are both wonderful hazers I do have to say that this isn’t quite a fair comparison because of the fact mdg uses CO2 which greatly changes the property of the haze which makes it not as dense and also gives it a better hang time. Still great hazers though and im glad you chose to go with MDG. They are wonderful hazers !

[@telmnstr]

The MDG is cracking light mineral oil AFIAK, the Radiance is using a heating element and Glycerol in water similar to the "Spencer Gifts" fog machines. I don't think the CO2 plays much part in it other than maybe higher pressure than other oil cracking hazers that use air compressors.

[@michaelschneider3446]

That result is clear. That why more or less all TV productions are using MDG

[@fccymm]

Hey! Is that up-lighting that you have around the perimeter of your stage? Do you might sharing what you are using for that? I know some people have been using LED bars, but it looks like you guys are doing something different.

[@ChrisMonson]

Haha, we actually built our own up lights using light bulbs with aluminum rain gutter as a reflector. About a year ago now we did away with them and decided that we no longer needed up light to accomplish the look we were after so we got rid of it to clean up the stage a bit for camera shots. I'd be happy to provide you some information on what we built, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it. They were cheap and got the job done, but there are probably better options out there.

[@fccymm]

@@ChrisMonson Thanks for the quick reply! You have any other suggestions on a better route that we could take? We're very limited to where we can mount pars and ellipsoidal lights.

[@smfknj6010]

Are you only using one unit?

[@crashslanding8988]

Seriously....turn the Radiance down or the MDG up and you won't be able to tell the difference. It's also not fair comparing water based vs petroleum based because the droplets are a different size due to surface tension and water based evaps faster due to obvious reasons. I'm also not allowed to run petroleum based hazers in my facilities.

[@ChrisMonson]

Your comment raises the question, if you can't tell the difference then why would it be unfair to compare them? We routinely run both of these hazers in our facility, and the differences between them are quite distinct and apparent. This video accurately highlights what we've observed week after week for the past two years since this video was posted. They are two different classes and calibers of hazers, but they are both common names that are thrown out when people are looking to purchase hazers. Being able to visually compare the two is exactly what we needed to determine if the Atmosphere was worth the cost. For us, it absolutely was. If you like the Radiance, that's great. It's a good hazer. In our opinion, the Atmosphere is better. And it should be, it costs several times as much.

[@elpmedia3405]

Hey Chris, The MDG certainly looked much nicer than the radiance. Have you ever tried the phantom hazer? even nicer than the MDG, smaller particle with great light reflection and less absorption. Give me a shout at steve at tntsmokefx.com we just got a brand new one in that I could send your way for demo. Steve