Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Has anyone seen a 70mm blow-up print of "E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL"?

This is topic Has anyone seen a 70mm blow-up print of "E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL"? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009055

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 01-05-2008, 08:35 PM:

Has anyone seen a 70m blow-up screening of "E.T." in any capacity?

How is(was) the quality on these 70mm prints in terms of image and sound?

Should it be a big improvement to screen a 70mm LPP over a mint 35mm print of the 20th aniv. edition?

I am curious to hear your comments.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-05-2008, 08:59 PM:

The 70mm prints looked good and the sound was good
we had it in Toronto in 70mm

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-05-2008, 09:15 PM:

I saw it in 70mm at at least 3 different theaters: Edwards Town Center 4 in Costa Mesa (in #1); the Edwards Big Newport; and the UA Twin in Westminster CA (a horrible theater). It looked and sounded great at the Edwards'; not so much at the UA but not due to being a bad print I'm sure.

Having said that I also saw a few minutes of the 35mm 20th Anniversary release and it looked and sounded amazingly good to me. Unless you have an 80 foot screen or something, the newer 35mm print shouldn't be a disappointment at all.

Posted by Scott McGuire (Member # 4508) on 01-05-2008, 09:43 PM:

We just ran the 35mm 20th aniversiry print a few moths back and it did look and sound great.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-05-2008, 09:54 PM:

It did receive a Best Sound Oscar... thanks to the late Buzz Knudson and crew!!

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-05-2008, 11:39 PM:

ET played in 70mm in House #1 at the Waikiki Twins here in Honolulu and the presentation was wonderful. Although it was blown up to the large film format, the movie was a flat presentation and not scope. The 30th anniversary showing in 35mm was also at the twins and I think the sound was better because the sound mix featured a split surround compared to the 70mm mono surround.

-Claude

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-05-2008, 11:45 PM:

I ran ET in 70mm at the K-B Cinema in 1982 (split time between the MacArthur and the Cinema that summer)...I also ran ET at the Uptown on the anniversary showings in 35mm. Without a doubt, the 70mm picture was better. As for sound...that is tough...I have a preference for mag sound but no real problem with digital. I might give the edge to the 70mm print...but that might be just memory playing tricks, younger ears hearing the mag version...who knows.

Steve

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-06-2008, 12:39 AM:

While I've not seen a 70mm print projected that I can recall (the Tyson's Corner 4 is long ago defunct), I know that the SP prints of this have faded to red. I heard claim that there were LPP 70mm prints of the title, but have not seen any proof of that.

For a booking now, your best bet is probably going to be the 35mm Anniversary print - even with it's politically correct tweakings.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-06-2008, 03:03 AM:

Saw "E.T" at the Crossroads Cinemas in SLC in 70mm that summer of 1982...nice seeing this film in 70mm, but the house really wasn't cut out for these large film format showings .. 250 seat house, sloped floor, sound wasn't the best. Light was okey, but could be better if was using carbons.

Presentation of a flat movie formatted to 1.85:1 for large film release wasn't the best to be seen due to a very small screensize (typical screen size for those days and a decent sized house..

Now, would have been great to see this movie like a large house that was definitely setup for 70mm since they had the large screens, since there were many down in SLC at that time ...

Crossroads was a "Plitt" house ..

-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-06-2008, 08:48 AM:

Ran 'E.T.' in 87 in 70mm and it looked superb (for a blow-up) and sounded great.

The print we ran had a couple of splices at the heads/tails so those frames were removed...I still have them and the colour is just fine with no fading.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-06-2008, 05:12 PM:

Regarding the image quality of the blow-ups, keep in mind that there may have been two grades of 70mm prints for "E.T." The film's cinematographer, Allen Daviau, ASC, informed me a few years ago when I was pestering him for some info that he believes they struck a few 70mm "show prints" off the original negative, with the balance of the print run (more than 30) utilizing the commonly-used procedure (i.e. 35mm O-Neg --> 35mm Inter-Positive --> 65mm Inter-Negative --> 70mm Release Print).

I imagine those "show prints" probably were what was booked at the CINERAMA DOME in L.A. and one or two of the New York venues and perhaps a couple other key bookings. I saw the movie numerous times in 35mm during '82; I saw the movie in 70mm for the first time during its summer 1985 re-release at the MANN PLAZA in L.A. Fantastic presentation...the music sounded sooooo good!

If new prints were struck for that '85 re-issue, then, presumably, they would have been LPP. But I suspect the few 70s booked in '85 were leftover from '82, perhaps even mixed and matched from different sets, and may have pre-dated the use of LPP stock.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-06-2008, 10:01 PM:

1982 was the crossover year for the low-fade prints so ET could certainly have been low-fade. I know that Star Trek II, also a summer 1982 release was not as I have seen a reel of that around 1995 or so and it had definately shifted towards magenta.

The print at the K-B Cinema looked pretty darn fantastic, as did most of the K-B Cinema's 70mm shows. The sound was always decent there too...though never my favorite...particularly the surrounds were lacking in bottom end.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-07-2008, 12:25 AM:

From what I have seen over the years, the 35mm mono prints were Eastman and the Dolby stereo prints were LPP. That could've just been a coincidence upon the various original 1982 prints that I ran though.

I have never seen or handled a 70mm print of this title.

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 01-07-2008, 02:38 AM:

I ran a 35mm mono print in 1983 of which I have a few frames. Its on eastman stock and all magenta by now.

C.

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 01-07-2008, 06:42 AM:

We booked "E.T." for a Sunday matinee in the late 1990:s just before prints where withdrawn for the upcoming 20th aniv. restoration. I looked forward to see my old favorite film in Dolby as I did when I was 10 years old when it opened in 1982.

I was disappointed when we got a FUJI HP print with visible fading and MONO sound...

On top of that, the print smelled like a chemistry factory due to treatment and deterioration.

I have found some older Dolby 04 soundtracks can sound real nice and vivid. "HALLOWEEN II"-1981 comes mind which was another Universal release from the same period as "E.T."

I got the impression that older Dolby prints from the time when there was a dual inventory of Mono and Dolby where processed with greater care and quality to showcase the soundtrack possibly.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-07-2008, 02:16 PM:

I have. It looked good from memory, I remember it being 1.85 which has confused me as Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio!

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 01-07-2008, 05:37 PM:

We were running ET in 70mm at the Forum and in 35mm at the Rapallo next door back in 1982 here in Melbourne. Both were good but the 70mm certainly sounded better at that time. The Forum whilst large, had a short throw for its 42 ft screen, so 70mm was never as razor sharp as it should have been.

The 65mm shot films like 2001 always looked better than the blow-ups like ET. Star Trek 11 and 111 were also a little soft but Right Stuff was very good.

David

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-07-2008, 07:58 PM:

Many, many 70mm blow ups were actually inferior to 35mm scope in picture quality. I recall that E.T. was somewhat grainy. Sound was good, however. Superman II was terrible in 70mm.

70mm died for three reasons:

1. Moveovers were next to impossible unless you had more than 4 70 mm rooms.

2. Picture was unreliable when bad, but excellent when good.

3. Digital audio, especially Dolby Digital, yielded consistently excellent audio. Audio became 70mm's only selling point once DeLuxe got involved and blow-ups were common. Loui

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-08-2008, 05:15 PM:

I have an R2 of "Star Trek II" in 70mm lying around somewhere. It would be interesting to see if it has faded and if it was printed on SP or LPP stock.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-08-2008, 05:54 PM:

Blaine... Too bad you aren't in possession of Reel 1 so that you can help me win a bet that on original release, the roman numeral "II" was not a part of the film's on-screen billing.

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-08-2008, 06:01 PM:

Let me check a R1 that I have on 35mm and I'll let you know.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-08-2008, 06:59 PM:

No 'II' on Wrath Of Khan. I remember that. Ran this in 70mm and 35mm.

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-08-2008, 09:23 PM:

Pulled out my R1 35mm. Date code is 1982. It has no "II" on it.

I do have a trailer that does list "II" on the titles. I think it's the same trailer that's featured on the "Director's Edition" DVD.

And it turns out that I have reel 3 of the 70mm print. And it's also on SP stock - and somewhat faded to red.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2008, 10:28 PM:

One thing I know for sure about Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, it was the first movie to feature that classic 70mm logo in its ads. Here's one of my favorite mock ups of it.

Of course, the '82 Star Trek movie had the "Six Track Dolby Stereo Presentation" thingie underneath rather than the DTS thingie.

Made a little sign with the 70mm logo for Brad to put up in his projection booth.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-08-2008, 11:43 PM:

quote: Blaine Young
For a booking now, your best bet is probably going to be the 35mm Anniversary print - even with it's politically correct tweakings.

Nooooooo!

I'd pay to see the original cut Back on the Big Screen, especially in 70MM. I wouldn't (and didn't) watch the wuss cut.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-09-2008, 02:00 AM:

quote: John Wilson
No 'II' on Wrath Of Khan. I remember that.

quote: Blaine Young
Pulled out my R1 35mm. Date code is 1982. It has no "II" on it.

Does this mean I have to split my winnings with you? [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-09-2008, 08:39 AM:

Yes. [Wink]

Wrath Of Khan was called Star Trek 'II' everywhere (trailers, TV, newspapers, posters) except on the movie itself. [thumbsup]

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-09-2008, 09:39 AM:

When the LaserDisc was issued in 1983, the titles on the film itself had been changed to include the "II" I don't know if there were any actual prints struck and shown at theaters that had the "II", but every video encarnation has had it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-09-2008, 09:54 AM:

From memory...same thing happened with the original 'Superman' (1978)

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-09-2008, 10:39 AM:

Warner Home Video is well known for altering the original title cards from their old movies when they release them on DVD.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-09-2008, 06:52 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Warner Home Video is well known for altering the original title cards from their old movies when they release them on DVD.

Claude, such as...?

Warner, as far as I can tell, has never tampered with the title of "Superman." I think John's point was that "Superman" (1978) is similar to "Star Trek (II): The Wrath Of Khan" (1982) in that the on-screen billing is, simply, "Superman" whereas the movie's promotional material typically refers to it as "Superman: The Movie."

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 01-09-2008, 11:18 PM:

Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio!

quote: Michael Coate was the last to post

That might account for the odd reel in the 70mm print at the Park, Vancouver BC that was definitely printed in a ratio that differed from the rest of the print (reel 4, I think). The projectionist coped with that by masking the ports as the distrib wasn't interested in replacing the reel!

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-10-2008, 01:40 AM:

quote:
Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio!

But weren't there a number of films shot 1.66 and protected for 1.85? I saw several films at the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood projected at 1.66 (Interview With the Vampire, Robobcop, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). I made the assumption (perhaps incorrect) films were shot for 1.66 because this is how they would be shown in Europe.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-10-2008, 01:45 AM:

quote:
Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio!

Are you referring to the 1990 interview with film critic Gene Siskel? If so, I think that was a case of someone being in a situation where they were expected to recall information on the spot, which I think is one reason interviews often contain questionable information. Having been on both ends of the interview process, I know that it is unreasonable to expect people to recall on the spot exact details of past experiences.

I'm not claiming Spielberg is wrong or misremembering. Maybe he's screened the film for himself numerous times in different ratios and prefers 1.66:1. Maybe the Amblin screening room was only set up for 1.66:1 (for spherical presentations). Maybe he's confusing 1.66:1 with 1.85:1 (after all, they really are not all that different from one another). Who knows. Anyway, my point, I guess, is that according to the film's DP, Allen Daviau, "E.T." was shot with a 1.66:1 hardmatte but composed for 1.85:1. (Daviau shot two and 1/4 other films for Spielberg using the same technique.)

I think Thomas Hauerslev has some frames from a 70mm print; maybe he'll post them or provide us with a linky. Then, if you wish, you could scrutinize the image, even measuring it if you feel it necessary, and drawing your own conclusion as to what the film's ratio is or should be. But keep in mind that I don't think the labs ever really had a standard for blowing up spherically-shot films, so the ratios are all over the place. Even the numerous video versions of "E.T." that have featured a letterbox presentation have each had a slightly different ratio, falling somehwere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1.

In the end, I think as long as the ratio is close to what it's supposed to be, things will be fine.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-11-2008, 12:23 AM:

Ron Keillor... Please look over your recent post. What and whom are you quoting???

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 01-11-2008, 12:45 AM:

I saw it in 70 and mag sound at the fabulous Columbia Theatre in Atlanta, GA in '82 along with a full house. The image was razor sharp.

Anybody else ever go there?

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 01-12-2008, 01:35 AM:

I like your comments about "E.T.".
Thanks to those which have responded.

Does someone know for certain if new 35mm OR 70mm prints where done for the 1985 re-issue or for other matters before the 20th aniv. re-issue?

Keep up the good work guys!

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-14-2008, 01:05 PM:

There were no 70mm prints for the 20th Anniversary re-issue.