I loved seeing films at The Empire. The laser show before the film, the dayset introductions and then the famous THX logo and tone. Will we ever see the like of that sort of showmanship again? Of all the films I saw at that historic cinema, Star Trek VI made the biggest, most memorable impression on me. And hence why I decided to have a look at the 4K disc so I could make this video. John.

I need that time machine to go back and check this one though Crey Fish. John.

I really enjoy your videos. I believe yours are the best. Like you I'm a huge movie buff. I guess working as a facilities manager at AMC theaters would say so lol. But I love star trek. Growing up on it. I ordered final countdown as well on 4 k believe it will be better than Blu ray . Keep doing the videos. I really enjoy watching. Your friend Bryan bond.

@@bryanbond1658 Morning Bryan from a snowy, icy southern half of England. The Final Countdown is a great 4K. I just noticed yesterday that my review of that one has had over 10,000 views which is amazing. I didn't think it would be a popular video at all when I was making it. Funny what is a hit at times and what is not. I bet you feel the same in the cinema too when a film expected to be a big draw turns out to be a bit of a dud. Last Night In Soho perhaps? John.

I'm glad it gave you a laugh Timothy. I deliberately kept myself off screen for longer than usual in the hope that I'd get people hooked before anyone realized I'm actually a complete nutter! John.

I had heard about the demise of the CineramaDome. Hopefully someone with deep pockets will come forward to save the day but it's going to be a tall order because cinemas aren't getting much to screen these days. And when they do it's largely got to be aimed at the teeny bopper market as no one else is going to the cinema. The new Top Gun film bucked the trend but what else is coming along? John.

The Ten Commandments was actually VistaVision so a small similarity with Star Trek VI there. Have a look at the 4K of Jaws which was transferred at 5.6K which suggests 4K is not quite enough to get the best our of full frame 35mm. I don't know what the computer equivalent of 70mm would be but around 15K I guess. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Thanks John, I knew I'd get the Ten Commandments wrong! I do have Jaws and it is impressive on an OLED TV. Good to know the is more to come, I think I'd read that 35mm can be good up to 16K but I guess that would be dependent on the quality of the original print and the size of screen you view it on.

@@redrock425 I think there's a limit to what the human eye can actually perceive and Jaws seems to take us to that limit. Unless scanning has improved since that one was done 12 years ago then that's the file size that should be used for getting the best out of 35mm. I suppose 70mm would then be almost three times that size and IMAX three times that of 70mm. I hope Chirstopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' next year is finished on film because that may be the last chance any of us get to see a genuine new IMAX film. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Correct, John. VistaVision is 35mm with the image turned on its side to yield an approximately 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In terms of image size, it's somewhere in between standard 35mm and 70mm (55mm maybe?).

@@kthx1138 Take a look at my review of The Ten Commandments to learn all you need to know about VistaVision Mike. I've been over it a few times on this channel. John.

The first film was always the best in terms of image quality. The Blu-ray is pretty special as a result and that's good enough for me as it's not a great film, as much I like it. John.

I loved seeing Motion Picture at the Cinema again recently Pictureville in Bradford, JG’s score was just incredible to hear from the Cinemas sound system, so exciting the film looked wonderful.

@@grahambird4135 It's amazing that the first film is now getting so much attention. It seemed to be universally disliked back in 1979. I suppose the obvious Voyager returning home was so obvious to us all at the time that it lost a lot of its appeal but now the Voyager probes are largely forgotten, it's generated the sense of mystery that it always lacked before. John.

I need to check but I think there was quite a bit of 65mm used to make the first film Dan. It was the best looking disc in the Blu-ray set and probably as good as I'll ever need. But if I see the four film 4K set in CEX I may find it too tempting. I was going to get it from my most recent visit to HMV when they were selling them off for £50 but there were none left and now it's gone up to £70. I can live without them at that price. Star Trek VI was a special cinema screening and I think it's the best of all the Star Trek films so after my Star Wars upload being a bit of a disappointment in terms of views I didn't fancy doing another massive video so this one only took around 12 hours from start to finish. John.

​@@moviecollector5920 I just watched the extended version of the first movie. While the beginning is much slower, I think this new 4K director's cut really is stunning and would be worth a watch in your theater. It feels like a proper hard sci-fi movie. The themes in the movie are very strong.

@@gnevos I always liked the look of the first film but the additional pair of characters spoiled it all a bit too much. The fact that the ending was so obvious at the time in 1979 was the biggest let down of all though. As soon as I saw a synopsis of what it was about I knew that V'Ger was Voyager. That was really poor but I don't suppose anyone not around at the time would see the connection as it's not so relevant today. John.

@@wildlifetails We're all different Spaceport and I really like Generations. It was fabulous at The Empire and is another Star Trek I've been trying to reproduce at home the way it looked and sounded at The Empire but again I don't think it's quite possible to get it that good. Did Kirk really die on that rock or was it just a representation of him? Nothing ever has to be as it seems with science fiction. As for Patrick Stewart playing Picard, I think he's brilliant. John.

Hated Generations plot wise and how Kirk was killed. But still think Patrick Stewart and William Shatner had great chemistry. And the Enterprise D has never looked so beautiful. The score was one of the better ones. The Stuff that was really off was the Christmas Carol Nexus stuff. But Malcolm McDowell was a great villain. My favorite line Kirk delivered about not leaving the bridge of that ship and telling Picard to not be promoted, is still great. Even if Picard ruined it by making him an Admiral.

That's a similar story to my own Mike but I still haven't achieved the same standard as that night as The Empire. I don't think I ever will but I've got close enough. John.

I like the film as it always has been but it does have a couple of flaws that cannot be airbrushed out. The obvious V'Ger being Voyager and the two boring characters introduced to become part of it in the end. Evidently written as a television episode or movie but the film is so good to look at that it can be forgiven. The Marketing Films release is the best version I've seen. John.

Except they screwed up a couple of scenes. The conversation between Kirk, Spock and Bones in the lounge looks horrible

I agree. the Director’s Cut of TMP was truly great. Honestly not too different from the theatrical but it has the most restorative love put into it.

@@MyFireVideos It was always the best looking Star Trek film in terms of quality so it could be that is why you're getting such a good impression. The Blu-ray in that pack I show is outstanding and that's down to the original shoot and the negative film stock used. John.

The director's cut definitely improves the editorial balance of pacing and some of the dumber lines of dialogue are removed to make the Enterprise crew look more professional.

I agree. I've always loved 3. A great straight forward short movie. 2-4 is such a great trilogy. I feel fine.

It was Super 35 (and VistaVision) but I don't know which Super 35. Probably 3 sprocket. The Search For Spock was brilliant at the cinema and since the Blu-ray release also works very well at home. As MyFireVideos says about the second, third and fourth films, "a great trilogy". John.

Perhaps, but the overall pacing of STIII was so glacial compared to the other original-cast movies as to render it nearly boring.

@@broncoguy4862 It didn't seem slow at the cinema Bronco. I was so impressed with it that I went back to see it a second time. That was at The Plaza which wasn't exactly the best West End cinema by then but The Search For Spock looked fabulous so they probably had a master print. John.

@@moviecollector5920 If you look to the 2004 Special Collector's Edition DVD, you'll find it came in an open matte 2.00:1 ratio. Look it up on Caps-a-holic

The best we'll get unless we're offered 35mm prints! Not something you can run often though but special to have. John.

I'd have loved to have been there with you to see all five films. What a treat! I also like Star Trek V but then, I like them all. It was flawed from the outset but it did lead to Nicholas Meyer being brought back for the sixth and final film. To have all the main cast members sign off literally was just brilliant. I could have cried though. John.

Surprisingly, quite a few on here are telling me they like the first film the best. Maybe it was being there in 1979 and feeling such disappointment that the people who made it didn't understand the reason for the success of Star Trek and therefore gave us such a sterile and unexciting film. But it is a great looking film and I like it in spite of all its obvious flaws. Every film that came after it understood what made Star Trek what it was but the second, fourth and sixth films captured it best and in yours and my opinion, the sixth one captured it better than the rest of them. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I enjoy TMP a great deal. III and V are my least favorite of the original films.

@@jsb1944 The Search For Spock is great on a massive screen but on a telly, forget it! John.

I wish you'd have invited me along too! John.

Doesn't Film Guard help to keep the film supple Thomas? I've never applied any to any of my own prints but that's because it's such a big job when it comes to 35mm and I've never really been set up for it. As for why film grain isn't so visible, I suspect it's because it's a photographic process and what you have outlined may well be a part of that. Video is an electronic representation of that photographic process and captures and enhances every little defect. But it is strange how film still looks better than video and I think that's mainly down to how natural it looks. John.

​@@moviecollector5920 We use film guard on all our prints, and I can certainly recommend it. We have Kelmar cleaners that have their pads soaked in it, which makes applying it much easier. No harder than just rewinding a reel. While it definitely helps many prints, some to even an impressive degree, It doesn't seem to do much for magnetic 70mm. I believe the magnetic striping itself is quite brittle, and that creates a weakpoint. It's definitely stiffer, if nothing else.

@@SplicesAndCelluloid I suppose that oxide is pretty thick and across much of the film so it's bound to have an effect. Nothing else sounds quite like it though so while the prints are still good I suppose they've got to be run. Clark Teddles in Sydney, Australia just attended a 70mm screening of Aliens and apparently it's the only print still in circulation with other surviving prints being in private collections. If you can find one of those, I think it could generate a good audience. I saw the 70mm at the Odeon three times in 1986 and I'd love to get the chance to see a 70mm again. John.

It was a Super 35 but I don't know which Super 35. When you look at how good Top Gun is then this one should really look better than it does but as it wasn't brilliant on 35mm then it's not possible to turn it into something it wasn't. I need that time machine to check the 70mm print. John.

The special effects in the first film were always fabulous. Amazing that they went back and re-composited all the elements for a film that's considered to be a bit of a duffer. I really like the film but I can see its flaws. The Marketing Films release is my preferred version of it as it runs about 46 minutes and you therefore get all the best bits with the rubbish parts almost all eliminated, but not entirely. I might not be able to resist getting the second and fourth films on 4K so if I see that box of four in CEX I might take the plunge. John.

Agree with all of this, and would add the soundtrack on the DC of TMP is astonishing. Never heard it this clear and dynamic.

@@RobinDale50 I think it's wonderful that the first film has finally found some love. Not a great film by any stretch but great to look at. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I totally recommend getting the 4K 4 pack. The films look excellent and the color grading is how it was theatrically.

@@markus5862 Funnily enough Mark, I went into the Bath CEX today and purchased the four film pack for £38. Seeing it for £69.99 in HMV confirmed that I should return to CEX and get it but I did spend even more than that on other discs in HMV. John.

That's another great memory there James. Graham Bird posted just before you that he got to lace up the 70mm print for one of the screenings at The Empire. Yes, there are some top film enthusiasts contributing to this channel which has made it all so worthwhile for me. Thank you. John.

Fortunately I don't have anything Star Trek related in the attic apart from a 1/8th scale model of the Enterprise 1701-D!!! It's a big attic. John.

We're on the same hymn sheet then Henri. I never considered the Romulan ambassador but none of them around the President of the Federation have much to do so I suppose it was only included to imply the scale of the conspiracy and the fact that those nasty Romulans were involved. They're always trouble. John.

It would be nice to ask Hiro Narita about the lighting and the grainy look to see if he can 'shed some light' (ahem!) on why it looks the way it ended up and if it was his deliberate intent. I need that time machine to go back and check how the 70mm blow-up looked but I was so impressed by the film that I may have just accepted it and assumed it was because I was so close to that huge Empire screen. John.

I should have checked in the ILM 'Into The Digital Age' book first Purefoldnz so thank you for pointing that out. I miss those good ol' days when massive models would be animated for a film. There was so much more to appreciate in the skill and artistry then rather than simply sitting down in front of a computer and drawing on frame after frame after frame. What a bore by comparison. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Yes exactly. Pixels can never replicate the look and the feel of a well made model. This kind of movie making is a lost art form. I do recommend Star Trek the motion picture directors cut 4K. It used to be my least favorite trek film but now I appreciate it so much more. The 4K is simply stunning.

I just purchased the four film pack in CEX for £38 Simon so maybe see if you can get that for a bargain price first and by the time you've finished enjoying them then Star Trek VI might have dropped in price a little. It seems that quite a few of us enjoyed really good screenings of the sixth film judging by the comments on here. John.

The six track magnetic sound on the 70mm print I saw at The Empire made this screening one of the most memorable and impressive I've ever attended Jonny. Back then everything sounded fabulous at The Empire but this one was the best ever. When Digital Theatre System sound was unveiled for Jurassic Park something changed. It was still impressive but a sort of harshness had crept in. After a while I thought the volume had been turned up too loud for too long with the new digital soundtracks and ruined the speakers but I now think it's more that digital sound wasn't as good. Beam me up! John.

We're two of a kind VJM, or perhaps 'as bad as each other' would be a better way of describing it. It also took me years to get a full THX system at home. Just after I did the downgraded versions were released which would have been less expensive but I'm glad I ended up with what we now know as 'THX Ultra'. To me it will always just be 'THX'.

Super 35 may well be the reason but I was not aware of watching a grainy 70mm print Ghost. I need that time machine! Have a look at other Super 35 films transferred to 4K disc such as Backdraft and Top Gun and the quality is sublime so it's not possible to be conclusive that Super 35 is the cause. I do suspect it is though. Presumable a rather grain negative stock, exacerbated by the low light levels throughout the film. John.

And thank you for not commenting "first".

I was actually going to say that you managed to get in first Cheekster but thegrimreaper beat me too it. John.

@@thegrimyeaper - Never have, never will do that! 😊

Good man Joseph. Maybe you should do a video on your appreciation of Star Trek VI so that I could enjoy watching yours! John.

Quite a few people seem to like the first film now Scott which is nice because it was such a big disappointment in 1979. It was always the best looking in terms of image quality though. I always liked it even though it was a bit lacking in terms of Star Trek spirit and understanding the camaraderie and interplay between the main cast members. John.

I purchased the 1 to 4 box from CEX in Bath last Friday for £38 so I may have to do a Star Trek update soon. I do actually have video of the original Enterprise being restored which might be interesting to us Trekkies. John.

That was always the case A TO Z. The first film always had the best image quality so it's nothing to do with cine transfers or video mastering, that's just the film stock that was used on the original shoots. The first film was brighter too and that always helps image quality. John.

Thank you Craig. I still have the film on VHS and I'm tempted to take a quick look for the nostalgia aspect. John.

There are regular mistakes on video inlays. Sometimes they're so obvious you'd think that someone would have spotted them but alas, there aren't enough people doing the work who are as interested as they should be in what they're doing. Been the case everywhere I've ever worked so it's not a surprise. John.

i shouldn't bother with the Director's Cut Gary because I believe they put the outtake in where the assassin is a human wearing a Klingon mask. How to ruin a great film right at the end in one easy exercise! I hope they haven't included that outtake but I think someone told me they have. Oh dear. John.

Star Trek V is great up until they arrive at the planet and have run out of budget in addition to the inevitable disappointment of the false God. A bit similar to the first film in that regard I suppose but the ending of V may actually be less of a disappointment than the first now that I think about it. John.

I didn't get the LaserDisc of any of the Trek films because they were NTSC only and £42 each at the time. That's why I got that VHS box because that only cost one and a half LaserDiscs for all six on tape. The fifth film has some of the best Star Trek humour of all time and I think that's why I like it as much as I do. The camping scenes are hilarious. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Well if you wanted my copy on Lazerdisc let me know it's mint.. :)

@@darkpoethd9913 That's very kind of you but you need to keep hold of that as LaserDisc is becoming increasingly collectible as the years go on. The big titles might end up funding your retirement! John.

I do actually share a knackered 35mm general release print of Star Trek VI that resides with my colleague. We only ever ran it once as we'd purchased it with the expectation of sticking a reel on at the BFCC but alas the scratch we'd been told about prior to purchasing wasn't as insignificant as had been relayed to us as it was a huge emulsion scratch some way in from the left end of the picture. The image quality is not great on that print and was a disappointment after my memory of the 70mm blow-up. However, a 70mm blow-up is just an enlargement from the original camera negative and the 4K disc is a cine to video transfer from that same negative so the end result there will be better than if someone went through the same process with a 70mm print as that's one generation down whereas the 4K cuts out that extra generation. I will have to collect that 35mm print sometime to check it but I think you'll find a master print was used by Paramount to match the density and colour grading as closely as possible. Nothing will ever be exact as it's human interpretation but it's unlikely to be too far out and even where it is out should only be within individual scenes. Star Trek Vi was a Super 35 shoot and that's why it's not as good as the others but special effects shots were VistaVision and that's why they look terrific. John.

The cameraderie is what makes Star Trek what it is. Without that it would be for nothing and that's one of the problems with the first film but there are others. It's obviously written for television but much of that inadequacy has been lost today as many weren't alive when the Voyager probes were big news. I prefer the Marketing Films cut of that first film as it really does fly past. Shame it's never made it to home video. John.

I have included a few stories of visits to The Empire when the relevant films have come up for review Andy. As for my memories of the video tape formats, I don't have many and they're all bad. LaserDisc is a different kettle of fish though, some really good ones there. I do include relevant LaserDiscs and VHS tapes as the films come up for review too. All the LaserDiscs have survived but quite a few of the VHS tapes packed up and got slung. John.

I don't know what I'm going to do next Paul. If this one had have done better then I was considering showing the original Enterprise model at the Washington Air & Space Museum when it was undergoing a restoration in 2015. That's assuming I can find that old video now but I think I know where it is. John.

@@moviecollector5920 That sound really good

You're as bad as me Rich! John.

I do have the red top as well Trevor. Susie's is the blue one a la Doctor Crusher. We went to the Star Trek exhibition when it was at the Science Museum and I still have the leaflet for that somewhere. I wonder if it was the same exhibition you saw. Star Trek IV is wonderful but I think the sixth film is a better film overall. Star Trek II is sensational too so there are quite a few out and out classics to choose from. I rather like Insurrection but I like them all. That 35mm print is actually Star Trek 10 as Keith has the print of Star Trek 6. I don't think we ever ran it all the way through. John.

Good to have you here Graham. I didn't ever purchase that many VHS tapes but I do still seem to have quite a few up there on the shelves. I've got many more LaserDiscs though but it's Super 8 that was the mainstay of home cinema up until about 15 or 16 years ago - whenever Blu-ray finally got going anyway. Still can't beat running a real film print, whatever gauge it's on. John.

I think it has all the ingredients that make it a great Star Trek film and in my opinion, the best Star Trek film. The fifth might have had the funniest moments though and perhaps even the fourth coming close. John.

Funny and thrilling!

It does look to have been Super 35 Neil but I don't know if it was full frame Super 35. John.

@@moviecollector5920 far as I know with super 35 they crop the frame to get the 2.35.1 aspect ratio James Cameron used this process a lot

@@neiltaylor6645 There are two options with Super 35; one is three sprockets high and the other is four. The Abyss was four I believe and I think there were full frame versions knocking around when first release on home video which was the whole of the four sprocket height. I still have the VHS so I should check that sometime. John.

The DVD was shown in open-matte Super 35. I'm not sure if it was 3 or 4-perf.

The trouble with the first film is the introduction of the poor pair of new characters (who are thankfully killed off), the poor storyline and the obvious identity of V'ger which may not be so obvious today but it was in 1979. It was a big disappointment back then but has played much better as the years have gone on. Fortunately, Star Trek II came along and the whole project was saved. The best image quality was always the first film though. John.

I think most Trekkies will agree with you there Albert. John.

Turn it up loud and see if the Klingon judge sounds like he's in the room with you too. John.

If that cinema is showing genuine IMAX film then I certainly know what you're talking about. Video just doesn't match up, however good it is now, because nothing beats 15/70 IMAX. I'm hopeful that Oppenheimer is going to get the genuine IMAX treatment when it's released next year. John.

@@moviecollector5920 The IMAX at the Seattle Science Center which is actually called the Boeing IMAX now is currently using a laser based IMAX projector that looks quite good although I don't think it can fully match a film projector with a pristine 70mm print.

@@davidcomito505 That 'laser' claim is propaganda because it refers to the lamp that projects the beam of light and you can buy laser video projectors for the home now. Nothing special but it fools members of the public into thinking that it's something special. Basically, it's 4K video projection. John.

Thank you CoinOp. Star Wars still didn't do very well considering the time that went into it. Maybe eventually it will get spotted and do as well as previous big videos I've done similar to that one. John.

I had to leave my appearance until later in this one otherwise I thought a few people would turn off thinking I was a complete nutter. Well, they'd have been right so I don't know why I was worried really. John.

I do need a time machine to go back and check. But 70mm is inherently sharper and brighter than 35mm even if it's a blow-up from the original 35mm negative rather than from a real 65mm negative. I need to take another look at the Blu-rays. Star Trek II was a little lacklustre compared to the rest of them. John.

@@moviecollector5920 1 and 3 in particular are massive upgrades (3 was just murdered by DNR/EE on BD). 2 looks as good as the digitally projected screening I just attended. 4 has always been tough to do on home video because of the dark cinematography and the film stock's inherent grain - but it looks better here than any other edition I've owned (going all the way back to VHS. 5 is certainly an upgrade over the Blu-ray, but of course many effects are quite badly done and don't look any better here. I agree with your review of 6 - it is an improvement but not a slam dunk upgrade. The textures are certainly clearer and the DNR/EE cocktail of the Blu-Ray is blessedly absent, but there is something about the white and black balance that doesn't please me.

@@matthewweflen So much work goes into every single release Matthew that we just have to accept that the authors have done the best job they can. The fact that we're getting cheap video discs in this quality is amazing. Star Trek VI looks very similar to that 35mm general release print and no one can ask for more than that. I'm happy with the Blu-ray set but I'd prefer to have a couple of them on film if I were given the option. For that reason I might not be able to resist the 4K discs to those two if I stumble across them cheap enough in the future. John.

Quite a few of us on here feel the same way Steve. John.

I hope you have a great time if you do Darryl. The sign off at the end might just bring a tear to your eye. I'm still blubbing 30 years later! John.

Thank you Roland. I too saw The Lord of the Rings in Leicester Square but it was at the Odeon and not The Empire. I don't think it went across the way after the Odeon had finished with it but it might have done. The Odeon was never as impressive as The Empire but that film was not up to the image quality we'd come to expect from master prints at the premiere cinemas. I now know that was down to the special effects coming out of a computer in low quality and probably the rest of the film being lowered to match. It did look rather lacklustre and that was probably a contributing factor to why I found it rather boring. I didn't see the sequels as a result but I did purchase the film trailers to them all on Super 8 and parts 2 and 3 were in 'Scope and damned good. One day I'll give The Lord of the Rings another try and by now I suspect I'll really enjoy it. My opinion of Star Trek VI is that it will never sound quite as good ever again as it did that night at The Empire. No amount of updating to the latest sound system will surpass the excellence I heard and would dearly love to experience again. That was six track magnetic and I guess it just sounds better than all the digital sound systems that came after it. Enjoy the first film on 4K. I've had many messages about it but I won't be watching that one any time soon even though I really like it now, which I didn't so much in 1979. A great looking film with fabulous image quality but it wasn't enough to offset the disappointment of so many other ingredients in the film. None of that seems to matter so much today but in '79, geez, such a let down. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Hi thanks for the reply to my reaction. Thinking back, it was probably the ODEON LEicester sq. that i saw LotR 1 in anyway. But i was still impressed by the scope of the auditorium, still one of the biggest i ever was in! I can imagine your feeling on ST 6, that cinema experience being the best ever and not ever recreatable at home. I love my home cinema setup but a very large cinema screen with the best audio equipment is STILL THE thing to watch (and hear) cinema-wise. My dutch home town has got a big IMAX screen, but i never found out (having emailed the cinema) what kind of sound system they exactly have there. But its pretty good. And we have a second multiplex cinema with one atmos (large) auditorium too. So, as many films as i watch at home, i still LOVE going to the cinema. all the best. thank you for your nice yt channel.

@@dalekslookgood IMAX isn't always IMAX Roland so unless it's got the 1.40:1 screen and 15/70 projection capabilities then it means it's branded as an IMAX cinema but is not genuine IMAX. Very few of the genuine IMAX cinemas specifically built to project 15/70 IMAX are still capable of running the gauge and so what you may be looking at is 4K video projection. They do have an extra bit of propaganda though by putting the 'laser projection' label on it to make people think it's something space age but the laser part is just the lamp so nothing special at all. There are laser lamp video projectors available for the home now so I don't really understand how this claim is still working but people are easily fooled. Look at the use of the word 'digital' for everything as though it's something special when all it means is binary computer code. Cinema is not what it once was as film is still the best method of projection but it's almost disappeared from distribution now. As for sound, I never heard anything else that impressed me as much as Star Trek VI but Star Trek Generations came close three years later. Six track magnetic sound might still be the best sound to hear in a large auditorium but it's difficult to get the chance to see 70mm with analogue six track mag these days as prints are done with time codes printed in to run a DTS CD in synch. By the way, the Odeon is still there and almost as it was when you visited. The cinema seating has been changed for large armchairs and sofas so the capacity is down to about a third which seems crazy to me but hopefully they know what they're doing. John.

@@moviecollector5920 i just found ou tthey are at the moment upgrading the IMAX auditorium in my city. We are getting 4k "imax" laser projection you mentioned and the new imax immersive sound system. and those comfy new recliner seats that are adjustable. the imax screen is closed until 1 december for this refurb. after that i'll go and grab a film there soon. be it real imax or probably a modern surrogate! My most recent very excellent cinema screening experience was the new Dune (pt 1) and that wasn't in the Imax screen or even with atmos. But i may be down to the excellent sound mix and soundtrack of that movie in itself. But i ca see that you are a bit nostalgic for true 70mm and older audio cinema systems .... In tose days when i 9and you) visited Empire LS London, we in my city of Tilburg NL, didn't have that good screens/audio. Later we got some decent auditoriums with a belgian vcinema coorp named euroscoop opening a high quality multiplex with actaually all very to quite large screens and good quality audio. and 1 atmos room. and then later the Imax room came in the other cinema in city center (pathe) which has mostly just 'álright' auditoriums and sound but the one Imax room. as tehy are renwing that, the pathe website now does not give out the future screen and audiio tech info. Thanks for the second reply. Roland.

@@dalekslookgood The frame size of genuine IMAX knocks everything else into a cocked hat Roland so this modern change into 4K video is such a downgrade that I can't believe they're getting away with it. I think the 2002 experiment with Star Wars Attack of the Clones shot in video HD or 2K and projected 2K illustrated to everyone in the industry (who didn't really care about quality or value for money) that the average patron couldn't tell the difference between a great picture and an average picture in terms of quality, Attack of the Clowns was so bad that I actually complained and it turned out that I was the first to complain despite the cinema expecting a rush of complainers because they could see how bad it was. If you can find a genuine IMAX cinema for Oppenheimer then that one should be released in 15/70 IMAX. I think the 4K release of Jaws (transferred at 5.6K) confirmed that 35mm is in excess of 4K then IMAX is about nine or ten times the size so do the maths on that one. Video doesn't come close. John.

Yes, i realized that after I'd recorded the video. Might have actually been 4 sprocket Super 35 but I'm not sure. Someone with the old VHS might be able to confirm that. John.

@@moviecollector5920 according to American Cinematographer, Star Trek 6 was shot 3 perf super 35. The first "widescreen" DVD release in the US was actually released open matte giving the film a 1.78:1 aspect ratio, supposedly at the director's request.

@@AtomicAgePictures That makes sense. And thank you for finding out it was the lesser of the two Super 35 formats which I'll try to remember for future reference. I need to see that 70mm print again to see how good it really was... or how not good perhaps! John.

I do remember seeing an outtake which is now apparently in the so-called 'Director's Cut' and that would rather ruin the ending. I hope it hasn't all been a complete waste of money for you Anthony. If you fancy going down the 4K route but don't want to change your telly, take a look for an affordable video projector which will mean you'll be able to play at cinemas rather than restricted by the size of the box. John.

Thank you Boss. All well here so hope you are too. John.

Keith's kept hold of that print Dan so the print I'm actually showing in this video is in fact Star Trek 10 but I thought it would add a bit of interest at that point to show a 35mm feature in my hands and a Star Trek film seemed to be the most suitable. We got it from a seller in the USA so it's not the same print. The emulsion scratch is also all the way through so we don't even get to enjoy the first half of the film. If it was right over to the side we could cut it off on the masking but alas, it's about a third of the way in. John.

Nothing will eliminate the fundamental flaws with the film though. As much as I like it, it's one to look at rather than get immersed in. The Marketing Films cut was the best of the lot. I don't think it's ever seen a home video release though. John.

$30m probably tells us what we need to know about the limitations of Star Trek VI. At the time, I thought these films were about the biggest things in cinema but evidently they weren't. I wanted to purchase the LaserDiscs but at £42 each I was able to get the whole set in that VHS box I show for just a few pounds more. It was actually the beginning of 1995 that I purchased that set as I'd been seriously ill and could just about walk (slowly) and had a long recovery ahead. I watched those tapes over and over to take my mind off everything. So, there we are, Star Trek is therapeutic on top of everything else. John.

Good to have you here Jon. I've never heard of, let alone seen 'God Help The Girl'. The trouble is that these videos take up a lot of my time and even this one on Star Trek VI took about 12 hours to plan, record and put together so I have to try to select titles that are going to generate a large enough audience to justify the work that goes into a review. Sadly even Star Trek VI isn't proving to be very popular so I'm having to think about what and how I do things right now. The big shocker was my Star Wars retrospective being so slow but it might get there in the end. We might be watching the original 'Solaris' this evening but that's another one that wouldn't justify a dedicated review video. John.

@@TheFlyingAudiophile I think to be a big success on KZfaq you need to slag things off and create trouble or a group of like-minded moaning minnies and I just won't ever try to do that. I also won't try to come across as someone I'm not so what you see is who I am. No one sets out to make a bad film so even when I think a film is terrible i will try to find something good about it to talk about. Having said that, the Star Wars films Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith would probably prove to be exceptions! My videos seem to do well providing the film being spoken about has a big following but there just aren't enough of them... well, not on 4K yet anyway. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I've recommended your site to 3 friends so far and the first has already subscribed, the other two I have only just told about it. I also plan to show my daughter who is doing A level film studies and is also a huge movie buff, indeed your channel should be mandatory viewing for any film studies student! I totally agree about the Star Wars prequels and I'm glad Lucas handed the reins over to Disney. There's some interesting stuff to review coming up though - I picked up Top Gun Maverick on 4k yesterday at Guildford HMV and having seen the first 20 mins it seems sensational aurally and visually. The new remaster/Directors cut of Star Trek the motion picture is also good (although compared to the standard bluray I'm not sure worthy of the hype!). The new effects sequences though are a vast improvement but I'm not sure that the bridge footage etc is a huge improvement on the already excellent 2k bluray set. I wish I'd seen your review of Terminator Dark Fate though before I snagged the 4k in HMV's 2 for £20 sale - I already had the bluray and as you say the 4k isn't worth it... As for me I'm looking forward to the rumoured 4k issue of Aliens in the future. It remains my favourite Alien movie. The thing that makes your channel so special is that you draw on superb technical knowledge and deep passion for film. Also you're not one of those shouty fast talking youtube reviewers who spout rubbish loudly. I applaud your desire to stay true to your values and ethos and I'm sure the traffic will build steadily, personally I find your insights fascinating!

@@TheFlyingAudiophile I had Top Gun: Maverick on pre-order but it's only arriving today. The Royal Mail seem to be on the road to oblivion now with the poor service and strikes. I like the first Star Trek film but I'm not particularly interested in seeing another version of it. I managed to get that original four film box for £38 on Friday and I've had a sneak peak at them and they do all look much better than the Blu-ray discs. If I didn't love the Star Trek films so much there's no way I'd have purchased any of the films yet again. Terminator Dark Fate isn't the best looking 4K disc by any stretch but I do think it's a very good Terminator film. I've liked all of them except the Genisys debacle which I thought was poor. I started this channel because I couldn't find anyone with any knowledge of film reviewing the latest disc releases (and I don't think you can accurately gauge how good image quality is if you don't have knowledge of how a film looks on film) but also because Covid-19 shut all three sides of our business down completely. I hadn't had any time off in 15 years and therefore hadn't had any time to concentrate on a KZfaq channel. I hoped I'd get enough of a following so that I'd be able to advertise and promote the British Film Collectors Conventions so we could resurrect an annual event once the pandemic was over. We've now got one booked for the end of next April so maybe I'll see you and your daughter there. It's in Chorleywood on the outskirts of north-west London. www.bfcc.biz. John.

I think the differing aspect ratios are because this one was shot using one of the two Super 35 formats so it might have been the taller format and hence why there seem to be different ratios. My assumption that the usual 70mm cropping at the sides to make a 2.20:1 ratio was probably wrong but it's not too important. Possibly the 1.33:1 VHS release has the full height of whichever Super 35 (3 or 4 sprocket height) was used. I expect anamorphic 35mm wasn't used because early computer animation was going to be added and squeezing the image creates difficulties for the computer cartoonists. I don't want to risk watching the alternative version. I remember seeing a daft outtake once where the Klingon assassin at the end was someone in a Klingon mask. Thank gawd they cut that out! John.

Top Gun and Backdraft were Super 35 too Dan and they look absolutely fabulous on 4K. I think it's the low light levels that caused this one to go a little too coarse. Might have looked a lot better on that 70mm blow-up simply because film grain rarely appears anything like as coarse on film, let alone 70mm prints. I need that time machine to check it. John.

There is HDR on the disc Dark so don't worry about that. I saw all the films in the cinema except the fifth because I was too poor to be able to afford a ticket at that time and had to wait to see it on VHS (which was awful). I do like the film though even if it's a bit lacking in a few areas. 2, 4 and 6 are the best three Trek films ever. As for the spin-offs, I loved The Next Generation and even got into Voyager in the end. We're currently watching series 2 of Discovery and it's excellent as was the first series of Picard. So there is life in Star Trek after... Star Trek. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I went to see ST4 a good 3 times at my local ABC screen 1. Incidently, I went and videoed the whole cinema before it closed down including projction booths for all 3 screens.

@@darkvader7231 Perhaps you ought to put that video up on KZfaq Dark. I know you haven't uploaded anything up to now but I'd like to see it and I'm sure others would too. John.

She'll love them Gary and will thank you for purchasing them. Everyone loves Star Trek and anyone who doesn't has something wrong with them and should seek help!!! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Live long and Prosper!🖖

Quite a few people have said the same thing but surprisingly, the first film now gets a lot of plaudits which is wonderful given it has always had such a poor reputation. I think the fact that most people weren't around when the Voyager craft were launched means the terrible ending isn't so obvious and such a disappointment to younger viewers as it was in 1979. John.

Thank you for all that Daniel. The first film was always the best looking. Quite a bit of 65mm in that if I remember correctly but I need to check that. The effects might have been the 65mm but it would explain why they look so good. It's a much brighter film overall and that will have significant effect on the final print quality whereas the sixth film was deliberately dark and moody. I need that time machine to double check how it looked in The Empire. If you want to see a quick flowing version of the first film though Marketing Film International released it as a 3x400ft Super 8 cut down in 1980 and it's gone in about 46 minutes. It still has some of the nonsense between the bald girl and Deckerd but because they're in there to be killed off at the end it would have been difficult to leave them out entirely. Nothing could be done to change the poor portrayals of the main characters and their almost completely different relationships to what we knew in the 1960's series. That had to wait for the second film to be cleared up. Many people have recommended the latest release of the film on 4K though so it's great that it's finally getting some attention and a fan base. I always liked it but the story was poor in addition to the flaws I've mentioned. The ending was obvious and so it was a disappointment after all the anticipation leading up to seeing it. But I still like it and appreciate it for what it is. It's about time I ran that Super 8 version again and having just thought about it, I did re-record the sound so it will be interesting to hear how well that's held up. I had a lot of trouble doing that as I didn't have computer video editing in those days so had to record it wild. John.

@@moviecollector5920 that's very interesting John,I have to admit always liking the original film,although not to the extent obviously to the extent of wrath of khan, which was a masterpiece, but I really liked the quiet intensity of the motion picture and it had a,serious sci fi tone more akin to the science fiction of the late 60s and 70s,which I agree I've also come to appreciate more thd older I get, Robert wise and gene Roddenberry clearly wanted a much more serious tone.was also little more intelligent and in depth,but the Robert wise directors cut greatly improved in my opinion and has much better flow and a feel closer to the tv series I think.i don't think it got enough credit for how beautifully it was filmed. Wrath of khan was just the perfect film at perfect time,and all the others apart from 5 have their merits,I just think looking at it now,particularly on that 4k directors cut the motion picture was very special and ambitious, and very much stands alone as serious and much less accessible yet beautifully done piece of 70s science fiction

@@danieltuval8879 Gene Roddenberry got sidelined and I can't recall if it was the first film now or the second film. I had it in mind that it was during the first film but Nicholas Meyer wouldn't have tolerated any interference so even if he had made it through to the second film he'd have been finished then. The fifth film was always on a hiding to nothing as going in search of God is always going to end in disappointment. You'd think all the film makers involved in pre-production for that one would have known that basic principle but I suppose the lesson has to be re-learned at regular intervals. A terrible shame for William Shatner though but perhaps he should have stepped in and said the story is crap before starting out. Or maybe he should have refused to have anything to do with it but I suppose he'd signed a contract by the time he'd learned what the story was and how impossible it would be to make a good film. The first film may have looked like a science fiction epic of the 60's and 70's but it was wrong for Star Trek. I can't remember talking to anyone who ever liked it until this latest 4K was issued so it's good that it's finally found an apprciative audience. Maybe it proves that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear! John.

@@moviecollector5920 I agree about 5,but I know alot of people who have love for motion picture, and it seems to have definitely gained popularity over last 10 years or so.i am definitely finding every time I re watch it I enjoy it more.id be interested to hear your thoughts on directors cut as Robert wise admitted that was,how he wanted the film to look snd feel, and I know he had alot of respect for Roddenberry

@@danieltuval8879 If Robert Wise had made a science fiction film like that but it hadn't have been Star Trek it might have been held in high regard all these years. Getting the characters wrong and introduction annoying new characters combined with the obvious ending being Voyager sealed its fate in 1979. It was evidently written as a television project but it did look great, just wrong for Star Trek. I very much like it despite all the flaws but I'm so glad Nicholas Meyer was brought in because even though he'd never seen Star Trek before getting the job, he could see what made it what it was and focused on what made it a success. The result was a true Star Trek film and the whole Star Trek industry has been a big success ever since. It could have all been so different had things have been left with that first film. However good the so-called 'Director's Cut' is, there's no getting away from the inherent flaws in the film. John.

I took a look at the first four films last night Wray having purchased the 1 to 4 box for £38 from CEX. They all look far better than the Blu-rays which is a nice surprise. I don't actually want anything added to the films as I think they're just about perfect already. I certainly don't want to watch the added 3 minutes to Star Trek VI as I recall seeing an outtake years ago where the assassin at the end was suddenly a man in a Klingon mask which would destroy the whole film for me if that scene were inserted in. I don't suppose it has been but I don't want to risk it. John.

I just watched Star Trek The Motion Picture on 4K last night but not the latest release. I still like the film but the flaws get increasingly obvious to me the older I get... or maybe that should be, the wiser I get! John.

I like the Marketing Films version of Star Trek The Next Generation. I don't think it's ever been made available on home video though. The Blu-ray is excellent though so that's good enough for me. John.

I suspect it looks a lot better on a telly than projected as big as a room will allow Kevin. I need that time machine to check how good the 70mm really was because I was so taken with it back in 1992 that I came away feeling like it seen a great classic with the best sound of all time up to that time. It didn't look brilliant on my system (nine feet wide) but who cares when the film is this good? John.

@@moviecollector5920 I'm using a LG C1 OLED 65 inch, and I gotta day John it always gives me a fabulous picture when watching my favourite movies in my movie room. From what you said in your review about 70mm 1992 version, I would too really like it check it out, or even have movie back on the cinema bigscreen one day..bet it would look great 👍 once again appreciate the work you do on the channel, really enjoy your 4k bluray reviews Kev. 📀👍👍

@@kevinrobertbrown2351 The trouble is Kevin that aside from a few cinemas run by people who understand film, everywhere else would think running a video of Star Trek Vi would be good enough. I want to see it from a 70mm blow-up if I pay to see it in a cinema. Most cinemas even had their film projection equipment taken away and scrapped which I think was a huge error because running a film print would stand a chance of getting more people interested and back into the habit of frequenting the cinema. Clark Teddles in Australia is regularly being invited into the Sydney Ritz and the Sydney Orpheum cinemas because they're screening 70mm and 35mm as often as they can now and they allow him to shoot a video each time. We need more cinemas like those around the world. John.

@@moviecollector5920 absolutely could not argree more, my local odeon screens classic movies now and again & l am usually there to see them John, appreciate your comments 👍

It's still my favourite Star Trek but we're due to watch Star Trek IV this evening... might have to be tomorrow if I get the latest KZfaq video uploaded though. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Enjoy! Watch out for dose newqlar wessels.

@@MonkeyspankO Oh, that scene's brilliant!

@@moviecollector5920 🤣🤣 ikr!

I didn't actually know there had been a 'Director's Cut' before this latest release. I always tend to stick with the theatrical versions though as that's what made it into cinemas. I'm fussy like that! John.

I like the addition of Colonel West!

@@moviecollector5920 Is the Director’s Cut included on your U.K. Copy, Commander? In the U.S., the packaging says it is but I haven’t heard anyone actually having it. In the box set the Director’s Cuts are on separate discs, yet no discs are missing. I wish there was a legitimate way to reach out to Paramount about this, promoting a cut that isn’t included.

@@SumDumGy It says it is on the front of the box Tim. I do remember some people asking me to look at it but there's no way I'm going to watch a different version to what I consider to be the most perfect Star Trek of all time. I did see some of the outtakes that are likely to be in that so-called Director's Cut and one in particular would completely ruin the ending of the film. There's usually a good reason why a film arrives in cinemas in the version that it does but there are rare occasions when something can be slightly improved due to original run time limitations. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I don’t expect you to watch it, Sir. I respect that you do not want to. Of the three additional aspects that cut brings to the film, one is absolutely a killer to me as well. I’m merely wondering if it’s actually there on your copy. Mine also says it is, but it isn’t. I far prefer what is often called the home video cut that includes two out of the three additions, and that’s the only cut I was are of for many years. It was on the VHS I owned.

Thank you Red. Glad you liked it. John.

That comment about Star Trek V must have been someone else David because I was so poor in 1989 that I could not afford to go to a cinema at all. That's the only Star Trek film I didn't see in a cinema. I wonder if that one was shot Super 35 or anamorphic. VI was one of the two Super 35 formats probably owing to the use of computer animation which anamorphic is more problematic for. John.

​@@moviecollector5920 Oh sorry John, my mistake. I think it was in a general conversation on 70mm Premier Prints that Spoolbox played at The Empire. Final Frontier being one of them. I think your comment might have been more about the quality you got from a 70mm Premier Print in general.

@@davidjames579 70mm and 35mm master prints were usually struck from the original camera negative as opposed to a general release print which is struck from the internegative (original negative -> interpositive -> internegative) which protects the original negative from too much wear. It does mean that the grading which is worked out from the interpositive and then applied to the internegative had to be done by another method when printing directly from the camera negative. This is probably why people have differing opinions on how films should be graded. Most of the time though, I'm sure that confusion comes from how a film looked on previous home video releases when low contrast prints have been used as the master. John.

I think all those Alien 3 prints were crushed! Seriously, most of them were but that wasn't unusual. I only ever saw it once but I have told people in the comments of my Alien review video that I'll take a look at it again when it gets a 4K release. I hope it plays better 30 years after that big disappointment I had on opening night. John.

If Generations gets a 4K release I expect that will be an excuse to talk about that Enterprise 1701-D crash because it's another sequence I've tried to reproduce in the home but not quite achieved it. We were in Leicester Square on the Friday night of the premiere of that one and we just stopped by a crowd control railing to look down towards The Empire when a car stopped in front of us and William Shatner got out. We hung around after than and I think it was only Marina Sirtis who wasn't there or we didn't see. John.

I suspect it was becoming difficult to deal with seven stars all wanting their time in the limelight and a great deal of money to go with it. I always thought the films were among the biggest box office takes around but it seems that they weren't anywhere near as successful as I'd assumed. John.

I need that time machine to check Erik. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Let me know if you find it - I want to see/hear that premiere print at the Empire Leicester Square in 1992 myself. I also want see a 70mm blow-up premiere print of Terminator 2: Judgement Day in 1991.

@@loekegaard9 That T2 70mm print at the Odeon is another I remember really well. More so than the look of Star Trek VI actually. I have clips of the cinema frontage with the T2 posters and everything else in my Terminator Dark Fate review. That was when I then filmed the footage (correct usage of the word 'footage' by the way as it's Super 8 film) of The Empire and all the other West End cinemas. John.

@@moviecollector5920 It's indeed fortunate that a certain Movie Collector had the good sense to take a trip down to the Odeon at Leicester Square when T2 was presented there in 70mm. That Super 8 footage of the huge T2 posters outside the Odeon in 1991 is amazing.

At least someone finally noticed! Thank you Dunn. John.

Yes, that uniform is awesome. I've always wanted one like in 2-6 with the button open front.

Good to hear from you Dave. I think I'm happy with the Blu-ray set of the films but I suspect I wont be able to resist 2 and 4 as they are just great, great films. John.

"I have been and always shall be, your friend." Thank you Bob. John.

I saw The Motion Picture when it was first released Lee and after all the build-up and anticipation of waiting for a triumphant return of Star Trek it was a big disappointment. It's getting much more appreciation now though which is remarkable given how poorly it was originally received. It was always the best looking in terms of image quality though. John.

Steady on Jim because it's likely that these are the best representations of the film that are possible on current video and cine to video transfer technology. There is one important factor that we've been told by two different studios within extras on two 4K discs (one is Universal and the Jaws disc but I don't remember the other one which I think may be 'It's A Wonderful Life') that scanning a film exacerbates film grain. For this reason, image noise reduction is used to rein in the appearance of film grain but sometimes this perceptibly removes other detail from the imagery and causes howls of protests from 4K disc collectors. The first and weakest of the Trek films had much of it shot 65mm and undoubtedly looks the best of the lot. Thereafter it was a bit of a mish-mash but because of the convoluted production that was The Motion Picture and how much it cost against the return all the subsequent films had less thrown at them. Film and negative stocks vary and a lot depends on what is chosen to shoot with. By the time of Star Trek 6 computer effects were de rigeur and that was likely why it was shot in comparatively low quality Super 35. Look at the model effects shots though and you'll see that they look far better than the rest of it. These are the sequences I think I probably remember and why I recall it looking terrific on the 70mm blow-up at The Empire. My BFCC colleague and I went halves on a 35mm print in the late 1990's (a general release print of course so from the internegative and not the negative) and it was quite shocking to see how poor it looked. A surprisingly drab film that disappointment me enormously. From all this my judgement is that the 4K discs issued by Paramount are actually good and probably better than we give them credit for. Add to that that they are home videos and cost as little as £15 for each film and they are absolute bargains. No way would I have ever thought such quality could be purchased for us to enjoy looking like this in our homes. John.

@@moviecollector5920 fair enough.

I don't even know why the postal workers are striking. I suppose it will hasten the demise of the Royal Mail so perhaps that's the ambition. We ship discs all over the world and it's becoming impossible to do that via the Royal Mail so we may have to call it a day on that soon. I expect many other small businesses are finding the same thing so striking when their business is in danger isn't the brightest thing to do. At least you got Carlito's Way through in time for this weekend though. I hope you have a great time with it. John.

I hope you like it Stephen. Turn it up loud though... as loud as you can stand without blowing your speakers. That opening score (sensational!) into the explosion of the Klingon moon and then the energy wave that belts into the Starship Excelsior must be among the best examples of Dolby Stereo ever put on film. And by Dolby Stereo I really mean any surround sound whether it be analogue or digital. John.

Thank you M J. John.

If I can see the extra scenes without having to risk watching the whole of the so-called 'Director's Cut' then I'll take a look but I really don't want to risk it otherwise. I'm worried it will spoil the film for me and I really don't want that. John.

I'm holding up the Vulcan salute right now Federico. John.

All six are in a box set Frostbeard but it's currently £99 so a bit beyond most of us mere mortals. The 1 to 4 box that came out about a year ago is the one that goes for £38 in CEX now secondhand so that could be the place to start. John.

@@moviecollector5920 yes I’ve checked Amazon and they have it for $146 Canadian $. Very reasonable for the amount of movies you’re getting in the pack. I may shop around a bit to see if anyone has it for lower 👍

@@grindhousefan80 i don't like using Amazon if I can help it Frostbeard but it seems to be the only option for many around the world now which I suppose confirms how successful they've been in killing off any and all competition. Enjoy the movies! John.

This one was only about 12 hours. Too much time but once I start I don't want to finish a video until it's pretty much as good as it can be. John.

I think it was Monday nights at 7pm on BBC1 Paul back in that days when the BBC was worth watching. I haven't seen the original series for years but I do have three episodes on Super 8 that were struck from 16mm USA television masters. They're interesting for having all the American introductions and break points for commercials. John.

Hi John I think I seen the Original series recently on one of the tv channels I think even had a remastered on tv too at one stage.

@@moviecollector5920 The Quality looked stunning when i seen it recently on tv i always liked the series.

@@paulallenMacca The original series is no longer quite as original as the special effects have all been replaced. The 35mm film or negative has been re-transferred and cropped into 16x9 too but as it was 35mm it looks as good as or better than just about everything else ever made to date.

@@moviecollector5920 Thanks for your expert knowledge as always. There is one film I’d love to buy on 4K and that’s 1998 version of Titanic I think I seen today that it may be coming out next year.

You're welcome Ken. Currently considering putting a video together of the original Enterprise model being restored at the Air & Space Museum which I was fortunate to get in to see in 2015 and allowed to video. John

The refit was opened in 1989 so I suppose the audio went in first so it was all hidden behind everything else that went in on top. I gave up on cinema in the early 2000's and only went to The Empire one time after 2006 and that was for Prometheus. The original THX sound system was more impressive but probably because it was being used with analogue sound until DTS came about in 1993 and I think it all got turned up too loud after that and that wrecked it somewhat. John.

Celluloid went out in the 1950's Pixel. Acetate took over but thankfully that was replaced by polyester and I think that was the early 1980's as that was when all our Super 8 prints finally moved over. Many had been done during the late 70's but all of them by about 1982. Super 35 has been proven to be better than it should be and you just need to look at Top Gun and Backdraft to see that. I think Star Trek VI was lower quality than both of those titles owing to the predominance of low lighting levels irrespective of whatever film stock was used. Remember that I project film in here (a lot of film) and film does not show the same levels of film grain either on 35mm general release print or Super 8 shrink down. A Universal film archivist did confirm that scanning a film exacerbates film grain and that is logical because it's a computer process rather than a photographic process. The 4K of Star Trek VI is similar to the 35mm general release print though even if there isn't so much perceptible grain on the 35mm. I'm just glad that not too much image noise reduction was applied this time because I'd rather see coarse grain than accidentally lose details from the final image. Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs springs to mind there back when Disney first started using digital noise reduction and they thought it was some sort of miracle when in fact it had removed all manner of artistry that the cartoonists had painstakingly drawn and coloured in the 1930's. John.

If only we could bring back those exceptional cinematic treats into modern cinema Mr Amtrak, then perhaps many more people would head back to cinemas to actually see the films as they should be seen rather than waiting a few months to watch them on their telly at home. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I’m lucky to have grown up during the 1970s and 1980s when 70mm presentations were the norm. Movies I remember seeing in 70mm included: Raiders of the Lost Ark, all three Star Wars, Last of the Mohicans, True Lies, T-2, Titanic, Dunkirk and Hateful 8 among others. There was something just magical about seeing a movie shown on 70mm. It was truly a experience to behold. I’m from Los Angeles, so we had multiple locations that were capable of running 70mm. Those included Grauman Chinese, Mann National, Regency Village, Cinerama Dome,

@@MrAmtrak457 We had similar experiences because we lived in the West End of London so walking distance from Leicester Square. El Capitan is a great cinema just over the other side of the road from the Graumann Chinese but I only ever saw The Lion King Disney feature length cartoon in there which wasn't the best they ever made so not the best film to see in a great cinema. Let's hope someone with deep pockets steps forward to save the CineramaDome. John.

@@moviecollector5920 the Chinese got converted to a IMAX format in 2013. Currently uses Christie 4K laser projection since 2015. Had a imax 70mm projector installed for “Interstellar.” Chris Nolan personally was on hand to help set it up. I saw “Interstellar” there because of that. The only first run 70mm I saw at the Dome I can confirm was T-2 Judgement Day. It was my first time experiencing digital sound. I saw “Walt Disney’s Fantasia” there in a 1990 reissue there which was impressive. All 70mm I saw there were re-issues. Which included “Bridge on the River Kwai,” “2001,” and most impressively, Sam Peckinpaw’s “The Wild Bunch.”

@@MrAmtrak457 Terminator 2: Judgment Day was actually six-track magnetic and that's why the sound was so good for that screening. I wonder if that is still the ultimate sound for cinema but perhaps if genuine Cinerama was still around then the 35mm full coat magnetic from that would surpass even the great 70mm magnetic tracks. Can you remember if the Cinerama deeply curved, louvred screen was used for the screening of 2001 A Space Odyssey that you saw at the CineramaDome? If so, then you saw the ultimate iteration of that film, As for Christopher Nolan having the clout to get a genuine IMAX projector into the Chinese Theatre, that's absolutely wonderful. I hope they've still got it and can screen Oppenheimer in genuine IMAX next year. 4K with just a light source from lasers is nothing special. I've been looking at home video projectors with the same specification recently because we may have to change as it looks like we're going to have to hang a video projector from the ceiling to finally get things properly sorted here and the existing video projector is enormous. I don't fancy having that up there because of the weight. I really need to find out how IMAX are getting away with calling 4K video projection 'IMAX'. I have a magazine from the 1970's that details the format when it first appeared and I don't think the people behind that fabulous, amazing invention back then would have ever wanted the name to have been so badly diluted by the current low grade exhibition equipment they're currently passing off as the same thing. John.

The first film was always the best quality so if the 4K wasn't the best then someone would have really messed up. In other words, it's not so much down to mastering but the quality of the films originally. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I agree. To be clear though, specifically the director's cut of The Motion Picture. They've really gone and done some amazing restoration work to it well beyond what they did with the theatrical cut - hence why it had a separate and later 4K release.

What a wonderful story Graham. Was Fred on duty that day? Have you kept in touch with him and follow his Spoolbox channel. I wonder if you laced up the screening that I was there for. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Don’t think Fred was on duty there was a couple of them in Ilky I think was his name, he told me how he had dropped a reel of 70mm down the stairs…. always stuck in my mind. I took an old projection friend with me (now long gone) he’d always wanted to visit the West End projection boxes he was so excited to be at the Empire he was hyper ventilating, Ilky gave him a cigarette to calm him down….. he wasn’t even a smoker! Great day out at the Empire only topped by the box visit at the Odeon LS.

@@grahambird4135 I was fortunate enough to be taken into the box at The Empire when Addams Family Values was being shown. That was a dream come true. Got into the Odeon when Nigel Woolen was the Chief in the later 1990's and that was on a Saturday morning before the cinema opened so we got to play all over the whole venue. Cherished memories. John.

Probably right there Mike. I think it was a four sprocket high Super 35. Strange that it didn't look better than it did though when you think about other Super 35 productions such as Top Gun. I need that time machine to check the 70mm. John.