AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 with IMAX

1998 Broadway,
New York, NY 10023

Unfavorite 43 people favorited this theater

Showing 101 - 125 of 549 comments

Cliffs on January 4, 2016 at 6:05 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And also: “It is well known that digital projectors go out of date way quicker than any 35mm film projectors ever did!”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 5:45 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 5:39 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 5:23 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 5:20 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 5:05 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 4:52 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 4:50 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 3:54 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 3:05 pm

Exactly, HowardBHaas. You nailed it on the head.

HowardBHaas on January 4, 2016 at 8:51 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 7:14 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 6:21 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 4:39 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.

ACS12 on January 4, 2016 at 1:06 am

It’s because of people like you that they’re trying to get rid of film once and for all, to replace it with digital garbage just because it’s cheaper. Good thing we still have those directors who prefer film, unlike you.

ACS12 on January 4, 2016 at 12:50 am

I knew you’d be the laser/digital apologist. Nothing yet looks better than 70mm film.

digital3d on January 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Film projection might have a higher resolution than laser BUT as many filmmakers have said too, contrast and brightness can matter much more than resolution AND 70mm gets worse with each screening (scratches and stuff) AND film takes more hours to set up AND film is basically obsolete with modern cameras and projectors AND 70mm prints are extremely expensive and messy.

So I’m kinda glad we get the laser which will finally fill up the screen again for EVERY movie.

ACS12 on January 3, 2016 at 3:34 pm

@xbs2034 I’m so glad Deadpool will be in IMAX 2D, but I’m bummed out that BvS and Civil War will most likely be only in IMAX 3D at Lincoln Square, just like Star Wars. At least they will be in IMAX 3D with Laser. I really hope they install that Laser projector at Licoln Square before Deadpool comes out.

ACS12 on January 3, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Spire is right. IMAX Laser can do 1.43:1 just like IMAX 70mm. I think Laser will take over film in the future. IMAX 70mm still has a higher resolution than Laser. This Laser stuff is an excuse to get rid of film projection once and for all.

ACS12 on January 3, 2016 at 3:20 pm

@moviebuff82 Yup! That’s what I like about those directors. They know film is better than digital.

Spire on January 3, 2016 at 11:54 am

@celboy The IMAX Laser projectors are indeed capable of projecting at 1.43:1, using vertical anamorphic lenses. Reports I have read suggest that for IMAX Laser shows of SW7, the Jakku sequence is presented in 1.43:1.

xbs2034 on January 3, 2016 at 10:01 am

@ACS12 Deadpool is a 2D only release, then BvS is in 3D but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are also 2D IMAX showings (WB has often done that with pictures like In the Heart of the Sea, The Hobbit, and most directly Man of Steel having both 2D and 3D IMAX showings), though Civil War may only be available in IMAX 3D based on Marvel Studios release history.

IMAX has always said there is a place for both 2D and 3D (how I feel as well), so I don’t expect anything to change with laser regarding that.

moviebuff82 on January 3, 2016 at 8:21 am

And some of them are shot in IMAX, like Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and Intersteller, and his upcoming movie Dunkirk. He is a huge fan of filming stuff in that format. Quentin Tarantino also shoots stuff in 2d too and prefers film to digital. Hence that his latest work was shot in 65mm for 70mm release before a nationwide rollout in a shorter digital version.

ACS12 on January 2, 2016 at 11:43 pm

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. This 3D fad is just a ploy to overcharge people. Ever since Avatar came out, that’s when they decided to release every freaking movie in 3D, even if they weren’t shot in 3D. It was good for Avatar, but not for every single movie. This is why I like Christopher Nolan. He’s not a fan of this post-converted 3D crap either. He releases all his movies in 2D.

digital3d on January 2, 2016 at 11:23 pm

I meant it probably is 3D since that’s the commercial way to got, not that I personally would insist on 3D.