MCU and Tracking Shot vs Trucking Shot

S

Shanked

Ok, Collective Brain of IndieTalk, maybe you guys can help me sort this out. I've been in the biz for a while but I didn't realize I might be have been using a couple terms incorrectly.

MEDIUM CLOSE UP
This is actually smaller than a close up, yes? If so, what exactly is the true definition of a close up. Everyone seems to flutter it somewhere between above the boobs and below the chin. Be nice if someone could cite the Gospel on this one. Just so I can settle some illegal bets.

TRUCK VS TRACK
I thought trucking meant "lateral" and tracking meant "maintaining." In other words, both shots are on a dolly but one term simply means horizontal movement relative to the subject; whereas the other term (tracking) means traveling with the subject in any direction. So you can, let's say, track backward, as your actor runs toward camera. Or your tracking shot can actually be a TRUCKING SHOT where you move camera laterally as you shoot your jogging actor in profile. Yes? No?


If anyone can sort this all out along AND source their info, that'd be great. Preliminary searches on the ol' interweb give me conflicting information. It's kind of embarrassing that I've been doing all this work for years, barking out sloppy commands at people, completely oblivious to the silent translating they're having to do in their underpaid heads.


Shanked
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'm not sure what you mean by smaller..? Perhaps closer? If so, no - generally I tend to classify an MCU as a chest up shot, (or breast up shot) and a CU as a chin up shot.

Tracking and trucking are generally interchangeable, though I rarely hear 'trucking' ever anymore, if at all - tracking has kinda taken over as the all-encompassing word.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks, Jax. To answer your question: the info that I'd recently got was that a Medium Close Up is indeed a TIGHTER (smaller) shot than a Close Up. This is obviously counter-intuitive... which therefore explains why there is some debate about the term. But, again, like I was saying originally, I'm not 100% sure about my source; my source could be wrong. I know a lot of people have used the term MCU in practice, but one side of this debate has to be wrong. Right? An MCU can't be BOTH smaller and bigger than a CU.

As for tracking and trucking, you think they're interchangeable terms? Hmmm... I thought tracking can go front or back, as in you track backward in a corridor as your actor walks toward camera. And tracking could go to sideways, too. But trucking could ONLY go sideways. No? Have I got the term tracking wrong?

Maybe these terms differ from country to country. You're down under, right? Anybody ever tell you guys to go get a can of shadow? ; )

Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MEDIUM CLOSE UP
This is actually smaller than a close up, yes? If so, what exactly is the true definition of a close up. Everyone seems to flutter it somewhere between above the boobs and below the chin. Be nice if someone could cite the Gospel on this one. Just so I can settle some illegal bets.

To me, an MCU is somewhere between thighs up and chest up. If it's closer to thighs up I may refer to it as a "cowboy", but in a shot list I'd refer to that whole area as an MCU. A CU would be shoulders up. An ECU would be face only, maybe even with top of head cut off (Warner Brothers Haircut)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
+1

Medium-close is between a medium shot and a close-up.

According to wikipedia:
In motion picture terminology, the term tracking shot may refer to a shot in which the camera is mounted on a camera dolly, a wheeled platform that is pushed on rails while the picture is being taken; in this case the shot is also known as a dolly shot or trucking shot. One may dolly in on a stationary subject for emphasis, or dolly out, or dolly beside a moving subject (an action known as "dolly with").
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shanked said:
If anyone can sort this all out along AND source their info, that'd be great.
Click to expand...

Interesting takes on these terms. I have always used them as
follows:

CU is the face. MCU is top of head to include shoulders. MS (medium
shot) is top of head to hips. “Cowboy” is a slightly wider MS to include
knees. FS (full shot) would be head to feet.

Trucking/tracking is interchangeable. Trucking has fallen out of use for
the most part - I hear dollying and tracking; “dolly” for camera forward
motion (dolly in) or backward camera motion (dolly out) and “crabbing”
for camera side to side motion. Both trucking and tracking can be
forward/backward or side to side. I hear, “this will be a tracking shot -
crab it left to right starting here.” from the key grip.

Source? Over 60 shoots on set. As you have seen the web has conflicting
info; I think this is because some terms change. And I know (having
worked on set with English, French, Chinese and Mexican crews) that
terms can be regional. But it seems to me that FS, MS, MCU and CU
are the same all over.

When you're barking out commands at people you are doing this in
what position? Key grip? DP?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks, folks. Interesting points of view. To answer your question, Directorik, I myself am a director and I was exaggerating about barking on a set. I'm actually one of those breeds that doesn't ever get angry or stern, no matter how tense the day. But I'm extremely hands on with the camera. And when I'm creating a new set up, I'll speak to the DP in a stentorian voice so all departments can hear... sound... props... the AD... grips... etc... and I'll declare the mechanics of a shot, often down to lens size. I don't know if I've been on as many 60 professional shoots like yourself, but my count is up there.

I fully agree with your breakdown of CU, MCU, MED, COWBOY and FULL. It seems like not everyone on this thread does though. For those of you quoting wikipedia, please keep in mind that wikipedia entries for film are probably CREATED by folks on forums like this. ; )

As for trucking being both North/South as well as East/West, I'll take your word for it, Directorik, but it seems much of the internet wants to confine trucking to East/West. As in crabbing.

Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd agree with rik, as pointed out in my first comment ;)

And no, a can of shadow...?

As far as I can tell, now finishing up a project in LA, a lot of the terms used are pretty much identical, though we are a lot more chill about it - we are just as likely to be asked for a peg rather than a C47, or an extension cord rather than stinger, though both terms are used almost as much as each other. Can't say I've ever heard anyone in LA refer to a clothes peg as anything but a C47, and a stinger as anything but a stinger.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Hey, New Kid, go get me a can of shadow." So then the kid runs around asking everyone on set for a can of shadow. This goes on for 20 minutes or so. With kid growing more and more frantic cuz no one seems to know where that last can of shadow went. Not the grips, not the electrics, not art department, wardrobe, nobody. Sometimes the ordeal might even last for hours on a really cruel set. The gag is... there is no such thing as a can of shadow.

Hazing.

But, yeah, I think that with this topic we might be seeing the boundaries of a cultural difference as far as what is said on a Hollywood set and what is said on a set in Australia or England. Next time you're on a production here in LA, bring a t-stop.

Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shanked said:
But, yeah, I think that with this topic we might be seeing the boundaries of a cultural difference as far as what is said on a Hollywood set and what is said on a set in Australia or England. Next time you're on a production here in LA, bring a t-stop.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah I've never encountered a production in Aus where a newbie has been asked to find a bag of t-stops or something similar, though I've heard many stories of LA productions that have.

In terms of shot sizes, I can't imagine there being too big a difference between Hollywood and England or Aus, many Aussie DPs and Directors work on Hollywood films, and whilst that doesn't really mean anything per se, I can't imagine we'd have completely different ideas on what means what, and certainlyv in my experience there have been no discrepancies.

I've always used MCU to describe a ~chest up shot and never found anyone to have any issues with understanding what I meant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dread and C-Funk, my apologies if I wrote anything inappropriate. While I do try to be as friendly as possible, I hold a priority of accuracy over friendliness in a forum like this... because I know a lot of us actually do this film stuff for a living and the information dished out on a filmmaker's forum actually directly serves our professional performance. I mean, I'm not advocating any negative communication. Myself, I actually try to be as gracious as possible, because I truly respect everyone taking the time to reply to my question. (In that vein, I spend as much time as I can reciprocating -- responding to other peoples' questions, paying back into the system, so to speak.) With my particular reference on this thread, I was just hoping to shed some light on the Wikipedia phenomenon. My remark was more of a compliment to this forum than a dismissal of any one member's contribution. However, I do think it's important to bring attention to a growing deficit within the internet at large. Sourcing. People tend to cite sources that may actually be citing their own information in return. It becomes a cyclical pursuit and solid facts can get drown in a recursive whirlpool. Case in point: the Wiki article mentioned above has inaccurate information, information which, ironically, will most likely be corrected by someone on this forum or a forum similar to this one. Again, though, I formally apologize to all who were offended by what I wrote and I officially rescind the remark as a whole.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shanked said:
I fully agree with your breakdown of CU, MCU, MED, COWBOY and FULL. It seems like not everyone on this thread does though.
Click to expand...

You mean, like yourself? Your first post describes a MCU as being "smaller" than a CU. If your DPs have been giving you funny looks, it might be because you're using terms like "smaller" and "bigger". :weird:

In your next post, you clarify that you mean to say that a MCU is tighter than a CU, no? Sorry, that's wrong. And as soon as a seasoned professional chimes in, you say that you agree with them, even though your first posts clearly do not agree with them. :weird:

Tracking/trucking/dolly? I ain't ever heard of trucking. Based on this conversation, sounds like that's an old-fashioned term. Dolly shots are those that are on a dolly. Tracking shots, oddly enough, do not always involve a track; handheld and steadycam can also be used for tracking, so long as the subject is followed.

Why can't I find you on imdb, youtube, vimeo, or anywhere else? Is the name in your profile fake?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was able to research two books on the topic: "Film Directing Shot by Shot" by Stephen Katz and "Storyboards Motion in Art" by Mark Simon. Both sources explicitly identify a medium close up as being TIGHTER than a Close Up. (page 122 and 84, respectively)

Thus the correct progression would be:
COWBOY, MED, CU, MCU, ECU

To address your point, Cracker Funk, you depicted me as someone who did NOT think as you do now. But you're wrong: I actually had held your same understanding for years -- that an MCU shows more of an actor than a CU. It was only recently that I realized I might have it backwards. A DP with a decent background murmured to me that the MCU is actually a counter-intuitive term. That's when I decided I needed to get some sources on this topic... since so many filmmakers, such as yourself and my old self, hold the opposite view.

Having found a couple sources thus far and gotten a few more opinions of working filmmakers, I have more info on the situation. And so through the course of this thread I now tend to think your current understanding is mistaken.

However, I don't say any of this to be combative. I'm only seeking accuracy. I get a strange sense that I might have offended you earlier in this thread. For that, I am truly sorry. All this stuff should be kept light-hearted or, at the very least, non-emotional. Forgive me if my tone isn't proper for this forum. I'm only on here to participate in a positive learning environment. I'll do a better job in the future.

respectfully,
Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As stated by David Mullens, ASC on a different forum:

On a movie set, we are just likely to be descriptive and say "a waist-up shot" or a "chest-up shot" (though the less polite term when shooting women is a "2T's shot".)
Click to expand...

How long is a piece of string? There are no hard boundaries between a wide, medium, and close-up. For shooting people, you could just say that a wide shot is head-to-toe, a medium shot is about thigh to waist up, and a close-up begins at a chest-up size. But that's just my general description in a shot list, on the day of shooting, you can adjust your size to whatever works.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shanked, you didn't offend me. You made a comment, that even now (after your clarification) seemed kinda snarky. I was mostly reacting to Dready's comment, which was on-point and funny. In my opinion, neither one of us owes either an apology, but just to be safe, I will apologize if you thought I was being combative. :)

I will say this, though -- you're contradicting yourself. When directorik mentioned that MCU is in between CU and MED, you agreed with him. But now you're saying something else.

I think the quote in jax_rox's post above is perfect. How long is a piece of string. :lol:

Thing is, though -- if EVERYONE is using the same language (that MCU is in-between CU and MED), but then ONE person comes along and tells you that ALL OF US are using that word wrong, are you sure you should even care what he's saying? Not saying you shouldn't work with him, but note that the definition he's using is not in agreement with the rest of the world. Might he have some historical reason for calling it that? Maybe. But contemporarily, MCU is definitely in-between CU and MED.

I'm a bartender. You know those glasses that martinis are served in? EVERYONE calls them "martini glasses". I'm a very old-school bartender. I use recipes and terminology from the 60's. And traditionally, those glasses were not called "martini glasses", because they weren't exclusively used for martinis. Historically, they're called "cocktail glasses", because there are many types of cocktails that are served in them. But I'm honestly the ONLY person I know who calls them that, and I always see confused looks on people's faces when I call them that. So, begrudgingly, I try to remember to call them "martini glasses", only because that helps in communication.

Language is not static. It changes over time. I don't know about the past, but today, if you want to be able to communicate effectively with people, MCU is in-between CU and MED. You're going to get weird looks if you try to use those words in any other way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're right, C Funk, I did misread Directorik's remark. And now that I re-read his comment, I'll have to disagree with his statement.

Your own point about the evolution of language is well taken, but I don't think any one of us can go so far as to declare that a piece of film language has now officially evolved... except in our own cities. If you'll concede that an MCU has officially meant (in the past) a shot sized between an ECU and a CU, then we can move on to the practical point is which is to pose the question: has the current usage of the term on movie sets CHANGED the original meaning of the term?

I would venture to say that any small productions outside of LA and NY are involving people who are going to be intuitive about the term. And thus they do NOT use it's original meaning.

But I'm in pursuit of the term as it's used on bigger sets, higher budget commercials, features above 2m, network and cable TV shows... in the main filming cities of any country. It's not enough for me to hear an argument that, well, heck the term SHOULD mean such-and-such and since a handful of indie filmmakers have used it as such-and-such, let's just say it's such and such.

I know it's doable to find a common vocabulary while shooting, but I'm not satisfied with "doable." If I don't have time to sit down with a DP and ensure that all our terms are precise, which is a gap in the process that does occur, especially with second unit or when guys get sick, then it's possible one day, in a rush, I'm over at, say, an actor's room, frantically involved with, y'know, whatever, someone feels fat, and an AD comes up to me and says Conrad wants to know which shot is next since we can't do the outdoor stuff yet and if I say "it's where we rack to an MCU of Karen" and then Conrad spends 20 minutes setting up that shot until I finally get there and I find out, thanks to my misunderstanding, they're way too wide and we gotta re-stage... then I blew it.

I'm trying to get it right. I realize there is a fluidity to language, but that's something I can bathe in AFTER I get through production. Not during. Film is war.


Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They are general terms and not hard and fast definitions. They are adjusted a bit depending on each production. The most important thing is that you and the people around you know what you mean when you use them.

Generally Close-ups are like this:

Extreme Close Up (ECU): Just the eyes, lips...
Close Up (CU): Just the face
Medium Close Up (MCU): The face, shoulders, some chest
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top