Does Cox have any schedule for when they will start Ultra High Definition TV?

What networks broadcast in 4K (UHDTV)? None. What cable programmer is using 4K? None. There is no 4K programming for Cox to carry. Sony supplies a few 4K movies with its 4K TVs, but that's about it. Most people say they see little difference between the current HDTV and 4K TV. And the bandwidth issues that would arise from UHDTV on cable? ACK!

Don't hold your breath. OLED TV prices are quickly dropping, and OLED TVs need no change in signal for a huge improvement in PQ. People relate the picture on OLED TVs as being "jaw-dropping." OLED is the future, not UHDTV.

As far as I know -- NO  networks are broadcasting ANY UHDTV.

YET

But that doesn't mean they won't, and since all the manufacturers are pumping out the sets just like they did when HDTV came along, it is reasonable to presume they will do it. The colors may be richer and brighter, but without MORE PIXELS it is IMPOSSIBLE for the picture to get SHARPER.

Also with UDHTV they can do 3D with only passive glasses that is better then the 3D with the powered glasses.

And with many more pixels it IS possible to have a much sharper picture.

Both technologies could be combined. You could have an OLED UHDTV ... and THEN you'd have something 

I doubt the manufacturers are spending all the money to produce UHDTVS without knowing the networks will produce content for it.

It took the networks quite awhile to convert to HDTV cameras and broadcasting, too.

I hope Cox is already planning for it.

Arizona Willie said:

 

I doubt the manufacturers are spending all the money to produce UHDTVS without knowing the networks will produce content for it.

It took the networks quite awhile to convert to HDTV cameras and broadcasting, too.

I hope Cox is already planning for it.

You failed to address the  bandwidth increase needed for 4K TV, which could be a problem for cable. OLED doesn't require increased bandwidth.

I've seen 4K and I've seen OLED. OLED has a far superior picture (although 4K was close with Sony's 4K material.) As I said, most people were unimpressed with 4K even with 4K material.

"I doubt the manufacturers are spending all the money to produce UHDTVS without knowing the networks will produce content for it."

Yeah...just look how much the networks are backing 3D. 3D TV is dying a slow death. [Just look at ESPN 3D.]

I well understand the bandwidth problem.

Time for all the cable companies to upgrade their systems.

In many European countries they get much higher internet speeds for less then we pay for Cox's minimum speed because they put in newer faster cable.

Internet 2 is going to need better / faster cable.

I just don't see the manufacturers spending lots of money to build UHD TV's without some reason to believe that networks are going to produce content.

Yep, 3D didn't go over because of the necessity to wear special glasses and the best system required expensive glasses.

A few years ago I read an article that claimed they had a system for 3D that didn't need glasses but they were having trouble with the color yellow I believe it was. Apparently they never solved that problem.

But yet 3D movies are pretty popular and you have to wear glasses for those.

I'm hoping Cox is planning to upgrade their cable system and transmit UHD.

It's cheaper than OLED.

The ideal, of course, is OLED UHD TV'S.

Oh well, time will tell.

Arizona Willie said:

I'm hoping Cox is planning to upgrade their cable system and transmit UHD.

It's cheaper than OLED.

 

Not really. For more insight into this and other OLED vs. 4K (UHDTV) issues, read:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57514352-221/4k-tv-vs-oled-tv/

Well yea, ofcourse it would be great if all the ISP upgraded their systems. I also wish they would repave the roads in concrete like they should have done in the 1940's, but you have to be aware economics of the situation. Other then market share what would Cox gain since it would cost millions for that type of upgrade even on a local level, nevermind across the Cox footprint. 

Also, how would you work them into the channel lineup? Would you have triplicates of every station? SD, HD and UHD? Would you stop broadcasting SD? Then what about all the people who don't have HD sets yet?

I think it makes more sense for home theater to work out the standarizations and hardware quirks for a few years before anyone even considers broadcasting.

Well Internet 2 is going to require cable upgrades anyway, so I < hope > Cox is planning for that.

They created a dual channel lineup for SD and HD already. No reason they couldn't add a 3rd lineup.

But, the most likely scenario, in my view, is that they would have one or two UHDTV channels just as they have a few 3D channels until such time as they do upgrade their cable system. They can probably squeeze that much more in.

It is just inconceivable, to me, that TV manufacturers would be investing in building UHDTV'S without some reason to believe there would be content. The 3D TV's have thousands of movies available. I don't know if there is any broadcast 3D content which is probably why it hasn't been successful. But the ability to display 3D has been a side issue with TV's anyway. More important has been SMART TV with the ability to do much more than just display tv shows.

UDH TV'S supposedly can up-convert HD, but up-conversion seldom works as well as the real thing.

I just read an article on, I think, NBC NEWS.COM this morning about TV's and UHD and OLED.

One TV company has already produced an OLED UHDTV, which as I commented yesterday(?) would be the ideal setup all the way around.

OLED is great for a lot of reasons, but without more and smaller pixels it is IMPOSSIBLE for the picture to get SHARPER. OLED produces great rich color and brightness etc. etc. and the picture looks great. But it isn't actually any SHARPER than HD because without going UHD there is no increase in pixels nor decrease in the size of the pixels.

UHD by doubling the number of pixels in the same size screen also makes the pixels smaller.

So you have more pixels that are smaller and that makes it possible to produce much SHARPER CLEARER pictures.

Hopefully, someday soon we will see at least a channel or two of UHD on Cox.

The phone company has a newer cable system, I believe, and may well have the capability to deliver UHD.

If that is the case, Cox will LOSE customers if they don't beat the phone co to the punch and at least have < some > UHD content while upgrading to meet or exceed the capabilities of the competition.

Plus you have satellite in the picture. I have no idea how much bandwidth they might be able to deliver.

But they are one more source of competition for Cox and if DISH comes out with UHD channels and COX doesn't .... disaster for Cox. I left Dish Network in 2004 when I got my first HDTV because Dish Network didn't have local channels in HD and Cox did.

I can change back again with a phone call, so can everyone.

But most people will probably be happy if they have a few UHD channels to go along with some sort of UHD dvd's and the up-conversion on most programs, unless up-conversion is really lousy.

"They created a dual channel lineup for SD and HD already. No reason they couldn't add a 3rd lineup."

Explain how. What frequency spectrum would they put those channels in? There is only so much room on the radio dial, so to speak. Cox already has to compress 3 channels per QAM as is, adding a 30% increase in bandwidth use for a series of channels only a VERY small portion of the population.

And I know what UHD is. Its nothing special, the industry has been increasing PPI for decades now. Its just another screen technology in a very long line of screen technology. There are lots of display that can display higher then 1080p resolutions, the problem is content. What would they play? Cox is only a service provider, not creator, so if the media isn't there to provide, I don't think Cox should waste energy trying to provide it IMHO.

More on 4K vs. 2K.....and OLED:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-1080p-201311153442.htm

http://www.oled-info.com/4k-vs-oled-battle-next-premium-tv-technology

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57514352-221/4k-tv-vs-oled-tv/

http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/4k-tv-reviews/oled-vs-4k.html

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/4K/Ultra_HD/OLED/The_Future_of_TV_OLED_vs_Ultra_HD/12473

Bottom line:

"According to DisplayMate, if your TV is smaller than 80" or so in size, and you are watching from a normal distance (i.e. not really close), it is simply impossible to view a single pixel in a Full-HD TV (your FHD TV is already a "Retina Display" if you want). This means that you won't actually perceive the difference between 4K and FHD in a 55" TV in your living room. So while 4K may be relevant for the cinema or huge screens, it won't be any good at home. Many reviewers claim that the images look better - perhaps they are looking up close or perhaps this is just wishful thinking?"

I think alot of it has to do with that the newer displays capable of these resolutions having better contrast, color separation, lighting, etc. A OLED benefits the same way a Plasma does, in which each pixel can be turns off/on. This doesn't have anything to do with the resolution, but can make the picture look much more life like, which is what most people observe. Also refresh rates are going up which makes fast actions shots (IE sports) look better. This can be accomplished by researching and getting a 1080p LCD/LED TV with a IPS pannel and save yourself a few grand.