AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 with IMAX

1998 Broadway,
New York, NY 10023

Unfavorite 58 people favorited this theater

Showing 51 - 75 of 1,091 comments

bigjoe59
bigjoe59 on August 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Hello-

thanks for the reply. as I see it the success of the new multiplex depends on the people in the immediate are frequenting it. I doubt anyone else will venture to 57St. and 12th Ave. to see a film. its kind of like the 62 St. and 1st Ave. multiplex which opened in 1992? while it was a modern state of the art facility at the time it didn’t help it in succeeding and that was a fairly residential area as well.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 28, 2017 at 12:22 pm

bigjoe59, it is a growing neighborhood full of bars and restaurants with several new condos going up. The area is already so popular that that the community board gets constant late night noise complaints from local residents.

bigjoe59
bigjoe59 on August 28, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Hello-

to Al A.– i hope you don’t mind me posting a question on this page since the theater in question doesn’t have a page yet. this Sept. Landmark Theaters will open a multiplex on 57Th St. and 12th Ave. who in the name of God is going to go to a theater on 57th St. and 12th Ave.?

CF100
CF100 on August 28, 2017 at 11:22 am

In the interests of truth seeking, from “Perception while watching movies: Effects of physical screen size and scene type”:

“5.1. Why do presence ratings increase with screen size?

“[…]

“Thus, a high-level account of these results might posit that larger displays are generally more impressive and therefore more engaging. Of course, it should come as no surprise that object size is an important visual measure. After all, it is not retinal images but the properties of distal stimuli that we are rightly interested in, and our perceptions of these are derived from the influences of various perceptual constancies, including size constancy.

“Evidence from fMRI (Murray, Boyaci, & Kersten, 2006) has shown that the spread of activation across the retinotopic V1 increases with an increase in perceived size, even when retinal size is constant. Exactly why this occurs is still not clear […] but it does show that the perception of physical object size, traditionally associated with high-level processes, can assert its influence at the very earliest stages of cortical visual processing, presumably through feedback.”

So, screen size is a factor, albeit in that particular study the field of view was kept constant, with the screen size altered by using two different screens, one more than twice the size of the other.

CF100
CF100 on August 28, 2017 at 5:05 am

alpinedownhiller: Sure, screen size is a factor, hence I began my post by comparing an 80ft.+ wide screen with a 5" diagonal mobile phone. Obviously holding the phone right in front of your eyes isn’t the same as a large screen even if the “FOV” is the same.

Confused by your comment: “Yeah but since you can chose where to sit, screen size does make a difference”?

alpinedownhiller
alpinedownhiller on August 27, 2017 at 9:26 pm

Yeah but since you can chose where to sit, screen size does make a difference.

(Plus, you actually still get a sense that a screen is a bigger and it feels more impressive even if you sit far enough back that it fills up less of your FOV. Sit farther back from a 100' wide screen relatively to FOV than a 60' and it still feels way bigger and more impressive and sitting far back from a 30' screen feels more impressive than sitting 12" away from a 24" wide screen.)

CF100
CF100 on August 27, 2017 at 3:59 pm

With regard to the discussion on IMAX screen sizes, the important factor (given, say, 80ft.+ wide screens and not a 5" mobile phone) is the geometry of the auditorium.

IMAX and OMNIMAX Theatre Design goes into some detail on their requirements.

Essentially, the distance from the screen to the last row should not exceed one screen width, and the first row not more than 0.35x screen width.

Also, the front row should be somewhat above the bottom of the screen, and the last row positioned about half way up.

Of course, the projection system must also be adequate to cope with the closer position to the screen compared to a traditional auditorium, and stadium seating is a given.

These requirements can also be expressed in terms of horizontal and vertical viewing angles.

IOW, whether a screen is 85ft. or 95ft. wide will make little difference, especially since the viewing angles vary depending on which row you choose to sit in!

bigjoe59
bigjoe59 on August 25, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Hello-

I wasn’t aware Union Square was the only theater to have it. I was just asking fellow moviegoers who might have experienced it was it was exactly. so I thank AL A. for his frank critique of it.

digital3d
digital3d on August 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Regal E-Walk also has 4DX.

It’s priced about the same as IMAX. Though before noon IMAX is cheaper.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 24, 2017 at 9:16 pm

Why would you ask that question here, bigjoe59? Union Square is the only 4DX house in NYC and it IS a stupid rip-off.

rayman29
rayman29 on August 24, 2017 at 9:04 pm

This is 4DX.

http://www.cj4dx.com/about/about.asp

bigjoe59
bigjoe59 on August 24, 2017 at 1:02 pm

Hello-

exhibitors are forever thinking up ways to get more $$$ from moviegoers eventhough movie tickets in Manhattan are already to frigging high. to which what in God’s name is 4DX?

moviebuff82
moviebuff82 on August 2, 2017 at 10:47 am

The imax at the AMNH is the second biggest real imax in the city, although they mostly show documentaries in regular and digital and lack reserved seating that other imaxes have. It’s also the oldest and first IMAX theater in the NYC area since its opening more than 35 years ago.

alpinedownhiller
alpinedownhiller on August 1, 2017 at 5:43 pm

(Thinking about the Chinese more, I think I was probably getting the 80' figure from recalling what they had said about the size of the screen that they had taken OUT and not the one they put in when they put in the new Laser IMAX system, so the 94' probably is correct.

Side, side note, Jersey Gardens theater in NJ has a huge auditorium that has the width to easily support at least a 75' wide screen, maybe even 80', it seems to have mroe like a 65', the problem is down where the screen is the ceiling is really low so they can’t fit much more than a 65' wide one in height wise if they want to keep at least ditigal IMAX ratio, if they were willing to move it up a few rows, which would seem reasonable enough since the place has a zillion seats in it, I’m sure they could fit in at least a 70' digital IMAX screen and I wonder if they could manage a 75', it might even be possible to raise the ceiling a bit down there since I suspect there has got to be some good bit of space up above the ceiling assuming they don’t have some critical pipes and such routed above it right there and then, if they ever went laser, could maybe give northern NJ a huge 80' wide digital IMAX ratio screen)

Back to this one, the weird thing is the auditorium here and screen at first look actually look smaller than the Reading Laser IMAX. I could swear the theater here has less seats across each row. That said once the full Dunkirk trailer started it did seem super looming, running full height, even from second to last row and that did give the sense the screen is the largest around. But the Reading one is huge. I’m sure it’s got to be the 86' you mention for sure and I might have guessed more like 93'. I think the New England Aquarium one is 85'. Anyway, whatever, hard to eyeball and different auditorium shapes can make it trickier to get a feel for what is going on.

I’m not a fan of the buttkickers at Reading, but otherwise it’s the best screen I’ve ever seen (the one here would be second best now for 2D but, at least the day I was there with the glasses they had then, one of the worst ever for 3D). I could swear they keep it, the Reading, even darker in the auditorium than the Laser IMAX here at Lincoln Square so the blacks are just utterly inky and the 3D, at least when I was there, used different glasses that produce utter perfection, just unlike any 3D I’ve seen anywhere else ever, just perfect, while the Laser 3D here ended up being horribly disappointing with the new glasses producing terrible double vision for the right eye, realyl do hope they actually do 100% fix that)

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on August 1, 2017 at 2:30 am

As an official volunteer, I’ve often added screen sizes to the Introductions of our pages, especially when I see the most credible proof, such as the theater’s official website providing specifications so feel free to link such information -copy & paste from the link & mention the source- in a comment on the relevant theater page. I’ll often see such pages for well known movie theaters. This site wishes to be specific for each theater.

xbs2034
xbs2034 on July 31, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Al Alvarez- thanks to the laser system, now every film fills the screen at least left to right, and it can be completely filled top and bottom with a 1.43 title.

Alpinedownhiller- I did see Dunkirk in IMAX laser in the Reading, MA IMAX just last week (to see it a second time after first seeing it in regular 70mm in NYC), and had been there once before for the first Amazing Spider-Man on 15/70 film. And the screen isn’t quite as big as Lincoln Square or San Fran (I believe it is 86 feet wide, but not sure on that), but its definitely one of the more impressive IMAXes I’ve seen. And seeing the 1.43 footage in Dunkirk there was pretty breathtaking (I also thought the regular 70mm footage, while obviously not as impressive, looked a bit better there than on 70mm film projection).

ridethectrain
ridethectrain on July 31, 2017 at 6:43 pm

From what I understand, Lincoln Square and Metreon are 1 and 2 in screen size followed by the TLC Chinease Theatre

alpinedownhiller
alpinedownhiller on July 31, 2017 at 6:41 pm

(on a side note for the greater NYC region, NJ really trails behind in screen size, northern and central NJ, AFAIK, tops out at 65' wide, despite it being one of the richest regions in the entire nation. Yet many other states have screens that hit 70', 75', 80', 85' (and CA and NYC even hit over 90', perhaps MA does with the Laser IMAX, not sure, seemed huge though and there had been a long period of 10-20 years where the area topped out at about 50' with most few theaters even having above 36'-38' and there are no true IMAX theaters readily accessible as this theater is an expensive pain to get to for someone from NJ and the only other one is a LONG drive to Atlantic City, I think A.C. now has two screens 70' or wider)

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on July 31, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Does it really matter if the projection does not fill the screen anyway?

alpinedownhiller
alpinedownhiller on July 31, 2017 at 6:32 pm

“The Chinese screen is 94 ft W X 46 ft H according to the overview on the CT page for that theatre.”

hmm interesting since some other place claimed the upgraded screen was 80' wide

94' wide would be truly tremendous

alpinedownhiller
alpinedownhiller on July 31, 2017 at 6:31 pm

The Chinese is not the largest and especially not the tallest. Even after the upgrade, the Chinese still tops out at 80' wide (the one here is 97' wide) and the Chinese has a digital IMAX ratio so it’s not that tall (compared to a real IMAX ratio screen).

Still 80' wide is one of the wider ones around, although there are some others that wide or wider around.

xbs2034
xbs2034 on July 30, 2017 at 4:40 pm

The Chinese theater has the most seats, but for screen size it is not the largest. I believe Lincoln, Metreon, and BFI in London are all tied as the second biggest IMAXes, with Melbourne having the largest IMAX and movie screen in the world (Sydney, Australia used to have the biggest screen, but that theater has closed).

stevenj
stevenj on July 30, 2017 at 4:04 pm

CT member ImaxGeek posted on the CT Metreon page Aug 7, 2016 that the Lincoln Sq and Metreon screens were the same size (97 ft W X 76 ft H) and the largest in North America.

Metreon

The Chinese screen is 94 ft W X 46 ft H according to the overview on the CT page for that theatre.

A current definitive list of US or world IMAX screen sizes does not seem to exist. Wikipedia’s has a worldwide list of IMAX venues and states the same as ImaxGeek for the Lincoln Sq and Metreon.

moviebuff82
moviebuff82 on July 30, 2017 at 3:17 pm

I think the chinese is the largest in North America if I’m right. And that’s a laser imax. It’s also the tallest. The imax in Rockaway is the largest screen in morris county, nj.

MoviebuffLS
MoviebuffLS on July 30, 2017 at 1:03 pm

Saw Dunkirk Saturday here. I can echo other sentiments when I say I thought the sound mix was off. The dialogue was sometimes hard to hear. I think that was a function of the IMAX 70mm film, as I saw other IMAX movies here (non-70mm) and the sound quality was properly balanced. Sounds like best explanation is the sound is tuned for Laser IMAX, not IMAX film.

I was looking up today biggest IMAX screens in the world. Is it true our very own Lincoln Square is 2nd biggest in the world? I read that an IMAX screen in San Fran is also 2nd biggest. Are they both the same screen size? Obviously, Australia has the biggest. Something wrong with that. This is New York. I hope AMC redesigns the screen to make it the biggest IMAX screen in the world.