MCU and Tracking Shot vs Trucking Shot

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
 
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.

^ This

I use the terms that my long time DP uses, because in the end, that's the only thing that matters. When I describe a shot to him or he describes a shot to me, we understand each other.
 
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?

You are either using something on wheels or tracks (of course, there are also Crane, jib and Vehicle mounts). If it rolls, it can be a truck or dolly. If it is on tracks, it is a tracking shot.

Track in or Dolly in can be the same move, with tracks being the difference.



MEDIUM CLOSE UP
This is actually smaller than a close up, yes? If so, what exactly is the true definition of a close up.

A close up is a head or face shot. Obviously, there is some room to play with, compositionally.


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)

I believe you, though this would be news to me, after 32 years of writing shotlists! :lol: I've always labeled the "bust shot" as "MCU."

Comparing M.L.S. and M.C.U. A Medium Long shot is just a little bit long and a Medium Close Up is just a little bit close. As far as I know, there isn't a "Medium Medium shot," but I guess you could say "Close Medium," though I have rarely heard that.

This is how I've been labeling from far to close:

E.L.S.
L.S.
M.L.S.
M.S.
M.C.U.
C.U.
E.C.U.

I learned storyboarding by researching Hitchcock. Though I can't find "M.C.U." in this example, I do see "M.S. closer," which is the same as saying, "Medium Close."

551922_10152039637240494_56180117_n.jpg



Assuming you are right about M.C.U. being the closer closup, what abbreviation do I use for my shotlist? No bust or cowboy, just 2 or 3 letters that fit with the others. Don't make it up - I want an industry abbreviation! I guess I can say "C.M. or M.S.C." :)
 
From work on commercial gigs, my two cents is the OP has it right. An MCU is tighter than a CU. I think everyone is confused by the fact that an MCU does not equal a Medium Close shot, which is a legit shot with the framing that a lot of blokes on this thread seem to be discussing. You lads are thinking of Medium Close but you're not realizing there is a separate shot called an MCU. Goes like this ECU, MCU, CU, MC, MED/waisty, cowboy, full, Cleveland.

Last bit is a nasty term for backing your box waaaaay off when you get an aging fossil of an actress who needs to look 29.

From Tootsie
Rita: I'd like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?
Cameraman: How do you feel about Cleveland?
 
I just realized the end-all answer to this entire thread. This sort of goes against what I said before, and I'm kind of embarrassed that I didn't think of this earlier. The absolute authoritative answer is:

Why should we give a shit? Who fucking cares about the exact definition of a word that can be CLARIFIED IN PERSON, IF WE AREN'T IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT?

Oh, when I said "medium-close", you thought I meant shoulders-up? No, I meant waist-up. Dammit, we must have waisted at least 70-seconds of valuable time, trying to figure out what we each meant!

In retrospect, I think a great deal of M44's threads have been more insightful than this one.
 
Last edited:
CrackerFunk. Easy, mate. On bigger gigs, the word goes from the director to the DP but also to the scripty, then the editor. When not everyone is in the same room yappin' it out, and the shot's expensive, these are the sort of misunderstandings that can get people yelled at.
 
Yeah, I just have a really hard time believing that there is an established and well-known distinction between "MC" and "MCU". Besides the fact that type of communication seems intuitively vague and incredibly ineffective to me, it's also true that the only person in this thread who has an IMDB listing that shows actual professional work seems to think that MC is in-between MED and CU. Hmm...

I can't imagine any scenario in which anyone would communicate either the abbreviations "MCU" or "MC" to the editor. Those types of words and abbreviations only exist on set, or in preproduction. In post, everything is referred to by the shot #.

And during production, the director, DP and script supervisor ARE in the same damn room, doing a whole bunch of yappin. They can talk it out, quickly.

This thread is silly.
 
Actually, I care, Cracker. A lot. ;)

I take pride in planning and terminology is part of that. Usually, I post a legend at the start of my shooting script, so the reader can refer to it. I will now add "Medium Close" to my list.

For example, I had posted this on another forum a while back....but made some current correction. :lol:





There is the language of the script and then the language of filmmaking. Off the top of my head - establishing shot, longshot (zoomed compressed or wide angle?), medium longshot, medium shot, medium close, close up, extreme close up, macro close up, dutch angle, fish eye, medium angle, wide angle, handheld, P.O.V., Hood mount, door mount, floor perspective, low angle, high angle, bird's eye view, pan (fluid head or whip pan?), tilt, concussion shake, crane up/down, dolly in/out, steadicam, track left/right, zoom in - dolly out simultaneously, Dutch angle, overcrank, undercrank, 24fps film motion, 22fps fight scene, 26fps graceful, 48fps slo-mo, 64 fps slo-mo, 60i smooth motion, (also good frame rate for post slo-mo), slow shutter blur, fast shutter action, polarizer filter for windows, dark blue skies, ND filter to create shallow depth of field, 80A, 85B indoor/outdoor/windows, Deep focus, rack focus, anamorphic twist, compressed space long zoom for helicopter strafe, etc.

Every director should be familiar with what these words mean. They can associate them with actual images (dolly zoom from JAWS, compressed space long lens from BLUE THUNDER, etc.) After I write or get that great script, I often make a shooting script, which is my text version of a storyboard. VERY IMPORTANT, unless you are a filmmaker that relies on Master Scene technique for shooting. (I use it for quick shoots, when there is no choice or time.)

I recommend a chronological "shot list," where each scene is broken down into shots. Example:

SCENE #2 WAREHOUSE EXT. DAY

1) Establishing shot of warehouse. A RED MUSTANG pulls up to the building.

2) Medium shot of MUSTANG entering frame - pan until it stops. The driver, Ray, gets out of the car. He pulls a GUN from his SHOULDER HOLSTER.

3) M.C. of GUN. pulled out.


SCENE #3 WAREHOUSE INT. DAY.

1) C.U. of door latch. It turns slowly.

2) M.C. of door opening. The GUN probes through the opening, followed by Ray looking in.

3) Wide shot of sparse warehouse.

4) M.S. of Ray stepping in. He closes the door.

5) Handheld P.O.V. shot, from behind a CRATE, looking at Ray. Someone is watching him. There is a sound and the camera ducks behind the crate.

6) M.C. profile of Ray. He whips his head and points his PISTOL at the CRATE.



Again, screenplays should have no camera instructions. Just the shooting script. This is a shot template that the director has previsualized and even rough edited - which is important for planning creative transitions, as in HIGHLANDER (fish tank/lake) or EVIL DEAD 2 (head roll out/shovel spade in).

Often, location shooting reveals some details that might not be in the script or shooting script. There may be a better way to show it. That's fine. At least, you have something to give you an example, especially when all those actors and crew are asking questions. This can be overwhelming for someone who hasn't shot/storyboarded and is trying to figure it out on the spot. This is common when directors are last minute replacements (ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU Frankenheimer for Stanley) or sequels are greenlit, before scripts are written (Poor Joe Johnston on JURASSIC PARK 3 [:D] ).

I also make a separate Character and Props Scene List, where I list the Scene, Day or Night and People and props for that scene. I also list things, like Fog Machine, Generator, Stuntman,etc., Depending on the scene's particular requirements. This Character and Prop Scene List is only about 5 pages, but it is what I use for scheduling and seeing which scenes are left, at a glance.

It's easy to sit down with your crew and figure out how many days you will need Ray (20 scenes), Betsy (6 scenes) and anyone else. Script, Shotlist and Scene List. That's how I've done it.

Proper preproduction requires that the director knows the language. A good script is only half of the story. (I've seen indies ruin good writing with bad production - wide shots and on camera audio, for example!) How is it going to be told? What filmic style or point of view?

Sure the Hollywood guys have FX supervisors to help them plan shots and get plate footage. I don't have that on my shoots. I have to figure out if we have enough points of reference for motion tracking a new object into the Z plane of a scene. I have to think about which plates to get and if the lighting is changing, as I'm shifting actors in and out of an effects shot.

Imagine a director not understanding the 180 degree rule. He just tells actors what to do, as opposed to thinking about matching eyelines, etc. "Reverse it in post!" For myself, it's all about previsualizing scenes subjectively.



Originally posted by JayLethal84
[br]Scoopicman can you recommend me some books that will teach me all these different terms you mentioned all filmmakers/directors should know (like the different shots ect.)

A good starter book (85 pages) is "The Bare Bones Camera Course for Film and Video" by Tom Schroeppel. It's outstanding and to the point. I'm sure his book "Video Goals: Getting Results with Pictures and Sound" is also worth checking out.

Instead of paying $50 on Amazon (some great reviews of it there), go directly to his home site and they are about $10 each:

http://www.tomschroeppel.com/index.htm



I can certainly go through most of the terms I mentioned. Filmmaking is deciding how much to show of something. This may seem obvious, but the typical approach of a new filmmaker is to get a wide shot of everything. Someone with more experience is going to emphasize where the audience should be looking.

If you have a wide shot of a guy and girl talking, you are going to want to see a closeup of his face, when she tells him she's been sleeping with his best friend. Maybe he drops his drink, bites his lip and clenches his hand. You may want closeups of each of those things, instead of just a boring wide shot that doesn't move.

This isn't a stageplay; you want to see the characters up close and intimately. But, you don't want closeups of everything. You have to balance those with shots of the environment and surroundings, so the audience understands where they are. In order to figure out the shots, you need to define them.


Establishing shot aka E.L.S. Sometimes the opening shot, it establishes where the scene or movie is taking place, like the opening of STAR WARS - we see stars and the camera tilts down to Tatooine. It could be a shot of your city, San Francisco skyline, a house in a valley, etc.

Longshot It could be a shot of you from across the street, including your house and the street. It could be a shot of you standing and we see you from head to foot.

Medium longshot A shot of you (and maybe a friend or two) from the ankles or knees up to your head.

Medium shot A shot of you (and maybe a friend - "2 shot") from the waist up to your head.

Medium close Chest, shoulders and head. Aka "Bust shot."

Close up Your face fills the frame.

Extreme close up Your eye or eyes fill the frame.

Macro close up Many zoom lenses offer a Macro setting, so that you can focus on ants and very fine details, like the lines of your skin.

Dutch angle A tilted shot that adds "weight" to one side the frame. Used on submarine and sinking ship movies. Even if the set is level, you can tilt the camera to give the illusion that it is not. Also used to convey artsy or weird.

Fish eye Very wide angle lens (8mm - 10mm) that gives the image a convex distortion, such as looking at someone through the eye hole on your front door.

Wide angle, medium and Zoom! A lens that is shorter than 50mm, such as 18mm, 20mm, etc is wide. Good for shooting in small rooms, these lenses will make the room seem bigger than it is. Pay attention to this part - a 50mm lens is standard on many still cameras and is considered a "normal look." Wide lenses will distort facial features, which look more 3 dimensional. The shorter the lens is, the more the subject's nose pops out!

Wide angles are great for moving cameras. The jerky movement is smoothed out and a really wide lens will look more like a steadicam. Wide lenses gather more light and are great for low light situations.

A long lens or telephoto (longer than 55mm) will do the opposite. It compresses space, making faces flat. A really long lens is good for making dangerous action look closer than it is to your actor. I use the BLUE THUNDER example of the cops on the bridge. The helicopter rises up and looks like it is right next to them. In reality, the scene is shot with a very long lens and the copter is at a relatively safe distance.

Long lenses need more light. They emphasize movement, like camera jerkiness, so keep them on a tripod. This info is true for zoom lenses that go from wide to telephoto.

Handheld and P.O.V. CLOVERFIELD, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, etc. Usually a Point Of View is handheld or steadicam. Remember the UNTOUCHABLES scene, where the Italian with the knife enters Sean Connery's apartment? The steadicam took the role of the killer/stalker. If you want the killer watching from behind some bushes, the shot will usually be handheld.

P.O.V. shots don't have to be shaky as hell. They just need to make the audience see through the eyes of whichever character it is, such as.... your dog! In that case, you would put the camera down low and look up at the human who is petting it.

Hood mount, door mount Anything that mounts a camera to a hood or door of a car.

Floor perspective, low angle, eye level, high angle, bird's eye view Where you place the camera can determine the power or size of your character. Looking up at Biff (BACK TO THE FUTURE) makes him look more intimidating than an eye level shot. Looking down at Marty makes him look smaller and more fearful. Where you place a camera can affect the scene differently. If your character is a mouse, then floor angles would be appropriate.

Pan (fluid head or whip pan?) Technically? "A horizontal rotation of the camera about its vertical axis." Or, left/right movement. A fluid head on a tripod will allow for adjustable resistance, so that your pans (and tilts) are smooth. However, you may want a fast pan or whip pan. In old TV shows these were used between scenes as transitions - quick pan (fast moving, blurred background) and some loud music. Another example shows a character exiting the room. The camera pans left (cut/blend in the next shot) and stops on another door (but in a new location) and your character enters. It looks like it all happens in one shot.

Tilt Looking up or down, or a vertical pan. This is the most common movement for introducing a character, starting with his/her feet and looking up.

Concussion shake Or camera shake. Often used on STAR TREK - the Enterprise would get hit, the camera would shake (or Dutch tilt) and people would fall down. Old trick for shaking a static set.

Crane up/down The camera sits on a mechanical lift that goes up or down, smoothly. Craning down is a common intro to a scene. A friend of mine rented a Genie lift to get this effect.

Dolly in/out Spielberg's favorite move. The camera is on rollers or a dolly cart. It goes towards or away from the character.

Track left/right If characters are walking and the camera stays with them, it is tracking. It is also usually on tracks or parallel PVC rails. Tracking shots are "money shots," since they take some setting up. Often times, a slow dialogue scene will have the camera track along a dinner table or from behind a piece of furniture and revealing the actors on the couch, etc.

Steadicam A counterweighted gyro camera support harness worn by the camera man, so he can get smooth camera moves, even on stairs and rough terrain.

Zoom out - dolly in simultaneously (or vice versa) Classic shot of Roy Scheider on the beach, when the shark attacks, in JAWS. Zooming out will decrease the size of your background, but dollying in will bring your character closer. Doing both at the same time will keep your actor the same size, while it looks like the background is falling away from him.

Overcrank, undercrank Film camera and Varicam terms for slow and fast motion. When a camera was overcranked, it went through film fasters. When it was played back, the motion was slow. With video, you can do the same thing with variable frame rates (like on Panasonic Varicam and HVX cameras). If 24 frames per second is normal film (24P video) speed, then 48 frames per second will produce slow motion and vice versa. Slow motion can also be done in editing, but is not always as smooth.

24fps film motion How many frames a film camera shoots in one second. 24P (P = progressive full frame, as opposed to interlaced) video cameras have been fairly successful at giving video film-like motion. Traditional video is 30 (29.97 actually) frames per second, made up of 60 "fields" (60i). Each field is made up of half the frame or lines of resolution. Two fields = one interlaced frame.

22fps fight scene Speeds up the motion by 2 frames per second. This is a trick used in martial arts films to make the fighters look fast and still be believable.

26fps graceful Slightly slows down the motion and makes it look a little smoother.

48fps slo-mo, 64 fps slo-mo Different rates of slow motion.

Shutter speed When you click an old still camera, you hear the shutter open and close, once. On film and video cameras, the shutter is opening and closing continuously. A slow shutter speed, say 1/24th of a second, will allow you more light (good in darker situations), but can blur action (which you may want), especially when the camera pans. A fast shutter 1/500th will give you clear shots of your action, but needs plenty of light.

Depth of field Video is notorious for having a deep depth of field (everything in focus), whereas film was known for having shallow focus, which is good for masking bad sets, background, etc. Shallow focus allows for clever shifts or racking focus from a near actor to a far actor. Filmmakers like this for the ability of putting the audience's attention right where they want it.

The current DSLR cameras are currently being ultra-exploited for their shallow DOF ability. You can fudge other cameras, by opening the iris all the way and zooming in. Opening the iris lets in light and it can't be too much. This can be offset by using the ND neutral density filter and using fast shutter rates.

If you are going into 3-D filmmaking, then you want everything in focus.

Polarizer filter A glass filter that you screw on top of your camera's lens. This cuts down on reflection, so you can shoot through a car's windshield and see the actors more clearly. It will also darken the sky and make it look more blue.

ND filter Neutral Density filter that cuts light, when too bright. You can buy gel sheets of this and put it on windows, if the background is washed out.

Color Temperature Indoor Tungsten lighting = 3200 degrees Kelvin. Outdoor sun = 5600K. This difference is why it is very tricky to mix daylight and interior tungsten shots. (see below)

80A filter Color Conversion. Raises the color temperature, causing a 3200 K tungsten-lit scene to appear to be daylight lit, approximately 5500 K.

So, if you want to shoot at night, but fake the daylight - place 80A color gel sheets over your lights, via C-47s on the barndoors. :>) Then set the camera on the daylight setting (white balance).

85B filter Converts 5500 K to 3200 K. So, let's say you are shooting indoors, with tungsten lights. If you put sheets of 85B on your windows, you will balance that daylight coming in.

I worked on a movie, where we were shooting day for night. We gelled the windows with a midnight blue gel, which made the sunlight look like moonlight.
 
Good info, Scoop. Thanks for the repost. Couldn't agree more with need for accuracy. Regardless of whether a point seems trivial, the very least we can on a thread is get it right.......... so that anyone who needs the info can access it.



And during production, the director, DP and script supervisor ARE in the same damn room, doing a whole bunch of yappin. They can talk it out, quickly.

This thread is silly.


Actually, Crackerfunk, you're wrong. Like the OP said, there are times in a crunch when all three are not in the same room. Maybe you've never experienced it but it happens.

If you truly think this thread is silly, then prove it by leaving it alone.
 
Uhh, but Scoopicman disagreed with the OP, choosing the more popular definition for Medium-Close.

I don't care how big or small your production -- if the definition of "Medium-close" throws a wrench in your machinery, you've got bigger problems. :weird:
 
Crackerfunk, I guess you didn't actually read my reply before you started thinking up ways to disagree with it.

There are two framing sizes that are being confused in this thread: Medium Close Up and Medium Close. They are different. The first, which is what the OP was asking about, is called an MCU and it's tighter than a CU. The second is a medium close and it's wider than a CU.

As to your comment about what can throw a "wrench" into a film production... the answer is "anything in the world" can mess up production. Anything! From the smallest misunderstanding to the biggest equipment failure. Film is a war of details. And what this thread represents is the pursuit of clearing up the identity of just one more detail that may prevent communication errors down the road.

BTW, why are you still replying to this thread if you've already declared that this thread is "silly"?
 
Uhh, but Scoopicman disagreed with the OP, choosing the more popular definition for Medium-Close.

Apparently, I was wrong and I'll always defer to the working pros (Directorik among them). I wasn't really disagreeing with Shanked, more like surprised - especially when he produced the text references to back up his statement. I got out my reference books and could not refute what he was saying with actual evidence. He has provided good info in many of his posts.

Thankyou, Shanked and MarkKnightRises. :cheers:
 
Of course I read your posts, MarkKnight. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise. Wow, so there's a distinction between MC and MCU? Fuck me in the ass!

So, what exactly do MC and MCU stand for? Medium-Close and Medium-Close-UP?

:lol:

And those are two completely different shots that are universally recognized by all professional filmmakers? And they never get confused with each other?

:lol:

BTW, why are you still replying to this thread if you've already declared that this thread is "silly"?

Why do you slow down when driving past a car-crash?

Seriously, this is the most non-issue EVER. The directors' job is to communicate. If this kind of stupid definition gets in the way of a good shoot, you just aren't cut out for directing.
 
The point you seem to be blithely missing is that any opportunity to gain clarity is an opportunity to protect a film production. So if this thread clarifies even .1% of the production process, then in the heat of the moment, that small portion of info could save a vastly greater proportion in terms of time and energy.

You, on the other hand seem to think that the only thing that can derail a production is a major issue rooted in a major cause. I guess you haven't been on enough sets to know that even the smallest errors can blow up into something huge. Can you control everything on a set? No. But you can control how much you learn when you're NOT on set. And that's the aim here.


The director's job is to communicate, but sometimes if you've got 2nd unit involved or you're going two-camera and your scripty is juggling both notes and the director is calling shots from a distant video village to a DP who might need 15 other details INCLUDING the tail end framing which is an MCU or CU on a shot, get this, mate... a shot with framing that might have to be improvised right there on the spot because the sun shifted or a prop never made it on set. So the DP and the director haven't worked it out in advance, haven't had more than two days of pre-production and the director is quick to call the new final frame of a dolly move and with the sun falling and the minors encroaching 8 hours and such, the DP and the director get it wrong.

Maybe one day you'll make it on to a bigger set where vocabulary matters a bit more and things move quickly enough to ignite ANY detail into a roaring fiasco. Then you'll finally get it. But until that time, with your reliance on foul remarks and your inclination to insult anything that contradicts your current understanding, that goal may be a bit tricky.
 
I'm still wondering what "MC" and "MCU" stand for. How do you use those words in face-to-face conversation? And I'm supposed to believe that they would never get confused with each other?

And how does that relate the OP's question? The OP has claimed that "Medium-Close" is more tight than "Medium". He didn't make any distinction between "MC" and "MCU".

So, which is correct?

The fact that we're having this debate makes me think that no such distinction exists. I'm supposed to believe that this terminology exists on "bigger" sets, but somehow it has not made it's way into the vocabulary of the most professionally experienced person on this forum?

The claims being made here aren't just counter-intuitive, they're ludicrous.
 
MCU stands for Medium Close Up
MC stands for medium close

If the OP thinks they're the same, he/she is wrong. They are not the same framing and I don't think anyone on set ever verbally says "MC" but they will sometimes verbally say "MCU." Regardless, though, a director and a DP may write notes in the margin of a shooting script. Likewise the scripty and editor might be sifting through handwritten notes. In those cases, it's imperative to know that in written format an MCU is tighter than a CU and a CU is tighter than an MC.

As the OP claims to have worked for a bit without realizing the error, the implication from the onset of this discussion is that this is a term that even experienced people might need clarification on. Can the distinction simply be abandoned? Sure. Will most productions survive this abandonment? Probably. But that's so beyond the point. As I illustrated in my previous post, the point is to perfect your knowledge as best you can while waiting for the next gig. The point is make every effort to get it right (not to shrug and go well sheesh who cares?).

As to your comment about who's the most veteran on this thread, it doesn't really matter. Perhaps the veteran you just mentioned has been getting it wrong for years. Perhaps not. I've been doing commercials on larger sets for almost 10 years. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm wiser than a 9 year vet. I know certain chaps who've gone 20 years and never learned anything other then "when's lunch" and "when's golden hour." And I've seen young blokes eager to learn every possible nuance as quickly as possible. It's a spectrum that's more about personality than history. The only thing that matters is that whoever offers an authoritative comment on a thread should try to distinguish between their own guesses and their own certainties, so that readers can pick and choose their info accordingly. I'm not guessing my info in this thread. I'm certain that MCU is used as described above. Hopefully, my reply helps random readers who read it. At the very least, they can use the entire discussion as a stepping stone to dig further into the situation based on a modicum of evidence.

"Shot by Shot" is a well regarded book. Short of interviewing top professionals personally, a young filmmaker would be wise to defer to its contents.
 
The reason I mentioned the most veteran professional on this thread is because if they haven't heard of this alleged distinction between MC and MCU, then it's use must not be very widespread. And if it's not very widespread, then it is perfectly acceptable to shrug and say "sheesh, who cares.".

I'll accept this post as your admission that basically NOBODY USES THESE TERMS THE WAY YOU SAY. Apology accepted. :P
 
I guess you have no interest in expanding you're understanding. Most filmmakers visiting this forum are aspiring to be on bigger, more professional sets. However, based on the overall essence of what you're saying and how you're saying it, I guess you're quite content to be shooting long movies on your cameraphone for the rest of your life.



I'll accept this post as your admission that basically NOBODY USES THESE TERMS THE WAY YOU SAY. Apology accepted. :P


Really? You resort to childish comments like this and then turn around and call this thread "silly"? This thread continues on because you refuse to apply logic. You just drag things out hoping your crass blustering overshadows the truth. It's obvious you won't stop wasting space until you feel you have the last word. So, being a good sport, I'll let you have the last word, give you yet another chance to try to assuage your bruised ego. If you actually make a decent point about filmmaking, I'll dignify it with a reply. Otherwise, my silence will serve as indication of the typical response professionals are probably already giving your work.
 
Back
Top