AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 with IMAX

1998 Broadway,
New York, NY 10023

Unfavorite 46 people favorited this theater

Showing 226 - 250 of 645 comments

HowardBHaas on January 11, 2016 at 4:20 am

see 5th paragraph of Introduction for description of Loews, described as the premiere auditorium above.

ImaxGeek on January 10, 2016 at 11:22 am

The Hateful 8 70mm roadshow release was shown in the kings theater, not the Lowes.

digital3d on January 6, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Yes, they sometimes still give out flyers over there.

optimist008 on January 6, 2016 at 5:08 pm

Do they still give out test screening passes in front of this theater???

Thank You

waterguy56 on January 6, 2016 at 4:53 pm

sw7 is scheduled up tp next thursday currently, any news/clues about the installment of laser IMAX? maybe next friday?

ACS12 on January 6, 2016 at 11:58 am

I wish I could watch Interstellar in IMAX 2D 70mm at Lincoln Square, since I didn’t get the chance to in 2014, but I know that’s never gonna happen. We can’t all get what we want.

waterguy56 on January 6, 2016 at 12:35 am

I watched “MAD MAX: FURY ROAD"in IMAX 3D at this theater last year. It was digital but it gave me the BEST movie experience ever in my life (my father said the same thing after watched it). I don’t know how excited I will be if it was in laser or 70mm :) wish to see it again in 2016, but never gonna happen I know:(

moviebuff82 on January 5, 2016 at 11:32 am

pretty soon they will renovate this theater with new seats as AMC is doing to mostly the Loews locations first and then the other AMC theaters by 2019.

ACS12 on January 4, 2016 at 9:16 pm

@alpinedownhiller By the time they install the laser projector, it will be too late. The Force Awakens will most likely be taken off IMAX by that time. I really hope it’s ready in time for Deadpool. I can’t wait to watch that one in IMAX 2D.

alpinedownhiller on January 4, 2016 at 8:07 pm

Will they get the laser in time to maybe show a few weeks of The Force Awakens in late Jan or early Feb?

I still can’t fathom the timing of their laser upgrade. Who the heck times it so they miss the biggest release in recent memory??

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 4:11 pm

You do have to realize, whatever format you prefer, that in 2012 theaters were required to convert to Digital. You can’t expect them to re-convert and I think that’s the part we all agree on.

Cliffs on January 4, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Nope, Red did tests and found 35mm film to be approximately equivalent to 3.2/3.5k, but that gets down to around 2k when you get to mass produced release prints, which is what I said.

Here it is from cinematographer David Mullen (who has shot major features and television): “It’s easier to just talk about the resolution on the original negative and avoid bringing in the resolution of various printing and projection methods, etc. Red has tested Super-35 and generally found it to be, I forgot, 3.2K or 3.5K, something like that.

You could therefore say that if a 24mm wide piece of film negative resolves 3.2K, for example, a 36mm wide piece of film (VistaVision) would resolve 4.8K, and a 52mm wide piece of film (5-perf 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO) would resolve 6.9K, and a 70mm wide piece of film (15-perf 65mm IMAX) would resolve 9.3K. However, this ignores some real-world issues like the fact that older medium-format lenses used on large format movie cameras have a lower MTF compared to modern 35mm cine optics (because the larger negatives don’t need lenses with high MTF’s because if you have more millimeters overall, you don’t need to resolve as many lines per millimeter…)

If you really want to be crude, you could say that you lose maybe half the resolution of the negative once it is printed through dupe elements and thrown onto a theater screen, which is why 2K projection seems on par with the best 35mm print projection, and 4K projection would be similar to 70mm projection, but it therefore also means that IMAX digital projection should be at least 6K…"

Don’t confuse comfort with mathematical certainty. And unless you’ve seen Hateful 8 under optimal 4K digital projection, how do you know the 70mm was better?

And also: “It is well known that digital projectors go out of date way quicker than any 35mm film projectors ever did!”

That’s because digital is constantly evolving where film has remained stagnant for decades. You’re basically confirming that film now is as good as it’ll ever get but digital is constantly and rapidly evolving and getting better and better. That’s not really the strongest argument in favor of film. Take the emotional love for film out and look at this from a purely logical/technical standpoint… would you rather have a tech that has hit it’s ceiling or one that is being made better every year? REGARDLESS of where you think each sits today…

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm

I have heard of Blu-rays though. And if we improve the digital technology, we might be able to have all movies come on discs. THAT would surely be better than 35mm prints, don’t you think?

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 3:39 pm

I have not yet heard that any movie theater is receiving the actual movie -not ads or previews, via satellite! Hard drives are more complex than a DVD or blu ray. Digital they all are, yes.

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 3:23 pm

You do know that DVDs and Blu-rays are also digital files? When we talk digital we talk everything being projected ‘computerized’, examples would be discs, hard drives or satellites. Each theater has their own way of getting their files. But all of the above is considered digital, as much as I know at least.

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm

I have movie theater operator friends but I am guessing you don’t. I will reply to one aspect- yes, DVDs & SD cards don’t pose the kind of problems that often are present when a movie theater finds it can’t open or project a digital film. We are talking about a 2k or 4k “hard drive” and computerized projector.

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 3:05 pm

I don’t know about this, digital files are literally just files. They are like DVDs and SD cards, which to me seems pretty reliable. They also come via satellite to some theaters, which is kind of like a TV stream. Those things seems much more reliable to me than a gigantic box of 35mm film.

Also, 2k is basically 1080p or 1440p, right? It’s just kind of hard to imagine that rusty 35mm prints could keep up with that. I even remember going to the movies thinking “Yeah the quality at the theater is even worse than at home”

70mm maybe, but as we know for every theater that is literally impossible. And even here I heard that Hateful Eight had imperfections.

Also I can imagine that some theaters still use the same digital stuff they got 8 years ago – digital projectors don’t need to be replaced that often as you might think. If you want to upgrade to 4k maybe, but that’s because technology improves, not because your projector sucks. And even here you don’t have to upgrade to 4k.

Also, think about it this way: You don’t need to PRINT the movie, you just need to get the file. That means you just need the system and the projector. You don’t need to get new prints from the studio all the time.

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 2:52 pm

To further explain, how often do you replace your computer? your digital camera? probably every few years in both instances, out of date. Not so 35mm film projectors which last many years. But digital film projectors…….

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

yes, I mean 2k hard drives, or as you state, with 2k resolution. It is well known that digital projectors go out of date way quicker than any 35mm film projectors ever did! And then must be expensively replaced. As to digital files….when your digital presentation “goes down” your show is canceled. Film projector problems could often be quickly fixed- not so when the computer or digital projector has a problem. Movie theaters are well aware….

And as I’ve stated, I do understand that new films are not going to be projected other than with digital.

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm

How are digital files less reliable than giant film prints? Also, where is your evidence that digital projectors last less than film projectors? I

What do you mean by 2k film? You mean digital files with 2k resolution?

Honestly, looking back at the blockbusters I saw with 35mm, digital just looks so much clearer and better. I don’t know if praising 35mm, which is a pretty old format BTW, is the right thing to do right now.

ACS12 on January 4, 2016 at 1:05 pm

Exactly, HowardBHaas. You nailed it on the head.

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 6:51 am

It is not my imagination that 2k film does NOT have the resolution of 35mm film. That’s fact. Digital cameras are more convenient for people. digital projection is more convenient for movie theaters. Convenience doesn’t mean better. And, digital projectors are far LESS reliable & last far less time than film projectors. Of course, everybody IS switching to digital projection. Maybe eventually some, including laser, will be better than film.

digital3d on January 4, 2016 at 5:14 am

We had 35mm prints for almost all blockbusters before 2012 in many theaters. Nobody cared back then. Its just your imagination that film is more cinematic, as Cliffs pointed out the 70mm version had issues that might be nostalgic but just don’t keep up with digital.

Think about cameras – they don’t run on film anymore. They run on files. And those files are just more reliable.

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 4:21 am

35mm is more like 4k film not 2k in terms of resolution and 6k doesn’t approach 70mm. (That’s why some 70mm classics were scanned at 8k) The 70mm print that I saw of The Hateful Eight at AFI Silver had no dirt, focus or stability issues and greater resolution of detail than anything I’ve seen in 2k or 4k film. Film is also easier on the eyes. I’ve not experienced laser projection & don’t know much about it but I’d take real film over 2k or 4k anytime!

Cliffs on January 4, 2016 at 2:39 am

I’ve seen Hateful 8 in both 70mm and DCP. Care to guess which one looked better? (I’ll give you a hint… it WASN’T the 70mm, which had various focus, dirt, and stability issues- none of which were present on the much sharper/more detailed/more stable DCP)

Digital acquisition and projection is improving every single year. Film is exactly the same as it’s been for decades. I love film for nostalgic reasons, but the MASSIVE improvements that digital has seen in only about a decade of existence is why it’s the future. 35mm release prints are the rough equivalent of about 2K, so 4K digital projection (and especially when you start to introduce laser and HDR/DolbyVison) are already superior to film on the majority of releases. And Arri has already released a 65mm 6K digital Alexa, so even 65/70mm film is getting lapped by digital acquisition. Film’s days are numbered and instead of calling out people as laser/digital apologists, try to understand that these improvements in digital are only going to continue to equal/surpass film as time goes on. Rigidly gripping onto 35 and 70mm film means keeping the technological advances of movie making stagnant and less than it could/should be. This isn’t 2002 when Lucas was shooting Attack of the Clones at 1080p. We’re way past that. Try to keep up.