Ultraviolet

[ktjensen]

There are four apps that can play ULTRAVIOLET movies. Effectively making the UV system your personal NETFLIX application.

But it cost you dollars to put movies on ULTRAVIOLET. And the playback is with DOWNLOAD or it is STREAMING. Which is not always reliable.

Can others post their experiences with ULTRAVIOLET apps?

NOOK
FLIXSTER
CINEMA NOW
PARAMOUNT
VUDU PLAYER

 

[cjmnews]

You can download Ultraviolet movies to your devices as well.

It is a cheap way to get movies onto your iPad. Sign up for Vudu and take in 10 qualifying DVDs or Blu-Rays and they'll convert them for 1/2 price. Pick up DVDs or Blu-Rays from the cheap bin at Walmart, then convert them to Ultraviolet for $2, and I think it is $5 for an HD upgrade.

They don't work with iTunes, but who cares if you can stream or download it directly to your iPad or iPhone.

Apparently if you get UV movies on one service, they show up on all. I am using Flixster for mine at the moment.

 

[ktjensen]

Yes it's true that all UV movies will show on all the webs.

 

[ktjensen]

After doing more research it seems that not all UV player companies are equal. Each has limitations on what they can-will stream or download to watch. Your collection of UV movies is more limited than at once thought. Looks like for my collection will be auditing to find the movies that will not play and consider how to have access anyway.

 

[kornchild2002]

Ultraviolet is one of the worst digital movie distribution services to come into play. I hate having to open a 3rd party app just to play a movie when they used to come with iTunes Store digital copies for free. I understand that Ultraviolet is platform independent but why would I choose to use an inferior app when studios used to actually offer a digital copy for the platform of your choice? I would gladly take an iTunes Store digital copy of a movie over an Ultraviolet version. In fact, when a Blu-ray movies comes with an Ultraviolet ticket, I normally let it sit there and not use the thing. I'll just rip the DVD that it comes with so that I have a digital copy of the movie in a format that they used to offer it in. Not only that but many early titles could only be streamed. I am not going to eat into my iPhone's data plan just to watch a movie that I already own and should have been able to have as a digital copy stored on my iPhone's internal memory.

I don't understand how Ultraviolet has come to replace the standard iTunes Store, Windows, and Google Play copies that movies used to come with. I'll often chose to not watch a movie (or even buy a movie) if it comes with an Ultraviolet only copy. I struggled with the Evil Dead (2013) movies, same thing with Star Trek: Into Darkness. I don't want to support studios if this is the digital avenue they are going to take.

However, when I do actually play an Ultraviolet movie, I stick with Flixster. It has worked with every Ultraviolet movie in my collection (all 12 of them compared to the 50+ movies I have that came with a real digital copy).

 

[cjmnews]

The original UV did seem half baked, but the updated version seems pretty good to me.

As for players, I really can't say what issues you may have seen other than the forced streaming.

UV is supposed to be a universal format, where we can play it on any device. Apple unfortunately is not participating, so the 3rd party App is needed.

I think that as UV grows, the Apple movies will become less desirable due to the restrictions on where it can be played.

You may want to check Flixster again to see if you can now download those movies, things seemed to be getting less strict these days. It is also possible there will be an update soon, enabling more access.

As for streaming only, I would find that frustrating, but if I am on wifi, I don't think I would care if it was streaming only or not. I think I know why work blocks access to most video sites on our personal device network

 

[kornchild2002]

I can understand the appeal of streaming but I am not always connected to a wi-fi network. In fact, whenever I'm actually traveling, the chances of me being connected to a wi-fi network when I actually want to watch a movie (i.e. in transit) are slim to none. That's why I hate streaming only options and many of the Ultraviolet movies I have are streaming only (they were when the service was first debuted).

I can also understand the appeal of having a universal service. That being said, I am head deep into Apple's universe now. I have an Apple TV in every bedroom and my living room, every computer has iTunes installed (plus there are two Macs in my house), and I have both an iPad and iPhone. I personally don't have a Windows computer or Android smartphone/tablet so I am perfectly happy with being "restricted" by Apple's DRM. In fact, I have started purchasing more movies through the iTunes Store now. I can play the movie back on any screen I have, it is normally $5-$10 less expensive than the Blu-ray version, the video quality (to me) looks the same as a Blu-ray release (I could care less about lossless audio, standard 5.1 Dolby Digital has always been fine with me), and the movies are often available a 1-4 weeks early.

The only times I really end up buying a movie now is if its in 3D or the Blu-ray price is comparable to the iTunes Store digital release. I'm still very much against Ultraviolet mainly because I don't want to access yet another service and another app just to play a movie when my iPhone and iPad have those capabilities built in and movie studios used to offer an iTunes Store digital copy. It was until recently when they switched to Ultraviolet only. I can understand offering that on top of their, older, traditional barrage of formats but not in lieu of.