[Closed] TV - Can you future proof

Curved is a fad, there's little reason to buy 4K yet, and smart TVs are better having the smarts externally. Get the best panel you can in the size you want; Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba.

I wish I could pick up a decent panel without all the extras.

Was intending to get a Panasonic 50" but local RS was out of stock and ended up with a Samsung. They didn't have any on display so I waited to find one with the same panel in another store but I prefer the pictures on panasonic and sony. The other problem is being a basic model (5 series) it doesnt have ARC (so will use up the optical input on my amp) and no CEC.

4k seem to be dropping like stones at the moment so I figure I may as well wait a few months for the better 50" to come down a bit more so will stick with my old 32" CRT for a bit longer.

Another annoyance is AV amps as only Onkyo support the HDCP 2.2 protection at the moment and Atmos is just starting to come out but so is DTS X...

I am wanting to put together a fully networked system that uses our hudl2/ipad/phones as remotes. Every all in one IR solution I have seen has niggles and I like the two way communication of IP control.

3D is dead, curved will go the same way, 4K gives a noticeably better picture (even upscaled from 1080p) so is probably worthwhile. Smart options will be tempting at the time of purchase but will be out of date way before the TV is halfway through its lifespan so consider them a bonus rather than a real feature.

Personally I would go for the absolute best image quality you can with as few features as possible. No curved, no 3D and no smarts. Then make sure it's got optical output so you can upgrade the inherently disappointing sound that comes from cramming speakers into such thin enclosures and make sure it's got plenty of input options for attaching external devices.

the thing is the better panels come on the more expensive TVs which are also smart. Adding the smart features adds peanuts to the price. You only have to look at the price of a smart blueray player (£50 ish) which have a physical drive, often a video upscaler and the smart features to realise how little smart adds.

I have no intention of using most of the smart stuff, I'd rather use a dongle of my choice plugged but a decent EPG with seemless roll-back and pause is nice. We have a youview box at the moment which fulfils all that and does quite a good job but I will replace it with a kodi/myth HTPC for full control over recordings etc.

Then make sure it's got optical output

Eh?

We bought one of the last Samsung plasma screens for buttons - way cheaper than the equivalent quality of LED display. Bought an external Roku box to go with it. That'll see us through until 4k or whatever settles down and that tech gets better priced.

what the hell should you buy?

this:

previous years innovation for 50% of the original price

I know someone who pays through the nose on a rental scheme to get a new TV every 18 months - "[i]It's the only way you can keep up with the technology![/i]" He's clearly a gadget show watcher and, as he's an un-ashamed strictly viewer, I question the need for a spanking TV if all people do with them is watch total shit.

Rob, self-righteous non-TV owner

3D/Smart seem to come as standard on large, top of end TVs - they did on mine. You may struggle to avoid them!

I've been looking at TVs recently in the 55" ish size. I'd love one that doesn't have smart, 3d or curve but they're tough to find. Any good examples about?

Futureproof... Buyiing older proven tech thats been about for a few years... Least then its not going anywhere...

Everyone knows someone whos bought a betamax at somepoint 🙂

Betamax was much better quality than VHS. I still have and old player in the attic (not working but don't want to throw it away)

Some of the higher end samsungs have replaceable processors, though I think its a couple of hundred quid to upgrade

Panasonic 50" but local RS was out of stock

If its the 50" Panasonic i just bought (and returned) you dodged a bullet! Now have a 42" Sony TV.

Having gone through the process of buying a new TV (replacing a 10year old sony 40" flat screen), ive learnt that if you watch a lot of standard definition channels then the picture on large screen tvs can be terrible: big screen, good picture, cheap...pick 2.

With regard 4k, unless you have deep pockets, the upscaling of SD/HD on the 'budget' 4k sets can be pretty poor and, given there is limited 4k content out there, there seemed no point in considering it at this time.

Don't bother with a TV get some forks

Or some wheels

future proof in a market that's changing so rapidly?

my 5yr old panny has smart features I'd now call dumb, and basically unusable. at 5yr old, I'm expecting it to fail any time. just like my JVC that failed at 4 years and philips that failed at 3.

personally, I'd go for 1080p again unless there's a real need for 4K. sure 4K have plummeted in price down to 899, but 1080p stuff has plummeted to prices that I think even my 23in PC monitor costs more than a 32in smart tv.

and beyond watching iplayer, hulu or netflix, all the smart stuff is a dumb gimmick you'll be bored of within an hour of trying out all fo the apps.

Some of the higher end samsungs have replaceable processors, though I think its a couple of hundred quid to upgrade

BIL has just bought a 55" 4k Samsung with a separate processor box, which is handy as he's also just found out that its not capable of playing Netflixs 4k stream!

LoOking myself at the moment for the same sort of thing. As others have saiD, on something Reasonably decent you will get 3D and Smart whether you like it or not so just find a TV wiTh the best image quality and go from there.

4k wise, there is basically no native content currently and the ups sling I've seen is not hugely different to a decent 1080p set. If all you watch is good quality (I.e uncompressed such as Blu-Ray etc rather than streamed) 1080p content through a good player then a 4k set May produce some great images. If you watch a reasonable amount of SD TV or DVDs then the upscaling difference will not be noticeable - just too little original information to try and magically make into a crazy resolution.

My thoughts anyway.

If its the 50" Panasonic i just bought (and returned) you dodged a bullet! Now have a 42" Sony TV.

Really? Which one?

I want a 50" for the living room but am thinking about buying a decent Sony 40/42" as they are coming in very cheap now and using that for a couple of years along with a nice amp and then when we move into our own place I'll get a big ass TV and Atmos/DTS X surround sound system and the 40/42" can go in my office.

Everytime I go look at TVs I prefer the image on Sony over pretty much anything. But I have to say there is something about 4k images that I like. I think out of all the HD screens the sony comes closest unless you are talking about the top end Samsungs etc.

Up until december we still had a 14" CRT /DVD combo in the bedroom and 32" CRT in the living room. Replaced the beedroom one with a Samsung which is okay and I quite like the OSD and smart features work well (for now) but the plan is to stick a chromecast or Nexus Player in the back of it.

No idea how long I've had my Panasonic Plasma (46"), 5, maybe 6 years? but absolutely no need to replace it. Yeah, so the "smart" side of it is pretty crap and out of date, but hardly use it anyway, what with a laptop and Chromecast. Picture quality on HD is perfect and that's all I need from a TV.

Pleas don't fall into the "upscaling" trap. Upscaling is the simple act of making a small picture appear bigger by guessing at the intermediate bits. Say you have two boxes, one red and one yellow. You need to add a third box between them that doesn't look out of place, so you paint it orange. That's upscaling. You cannot add detail which isn't there, this isn't Bladerunner.

But I have to say there is something about 4k images that I like.

There's something about 4K images I like too, but I prefer to watch TV and films on my TV so the novelty of looking at images on a shop demo would almost certainly wear off pretty fast.

The biggest improvement I've seen that will probably hang around is OLED screens, they're still expensive at the moment but I would wait for one of those to come down in price and nab that.

Unless you've got a real hankering for 4k then I'd swerve it for a couple of generations, besides Netflix pushing it there's not a whole lot of content out there anyways. I think LG showed and 8k panel at CES so by the time your 2k TV dies, 8k OLED may be the thing.

I don't get this "I don't want a Smart TV" sentiment either, no one forces you to use it and unless you get some professional monitor type thing nearly every TV is going to have "Smart" features.

New Sony TV's at CES were less than 5mm thick!

[img] [/img]

This is just another one of these modern day battles I've waved the white flag on - I just don't care anymore, my TV - which I won't mention for fear of someone who cares about such things tearing to bits and making me all angst ridden to replace was, in my view, the best looking one in the shop for the money I was prepared to pay when the last one went pop after 5 years.

It will display 1080p but not from the Sky box - which doesn't, I can get some 1080p via my Blurray player - but I haven't bought a physical disc in years.

Anyway, the HD that sky pumps out looks great, or rather looked great for about a week, then the "oooo ahhh" stopped, now it just looks normal and all the SD channels just look shit - it's like when I first bought a DVD player - looked great for a very short time before it just looked normal and all my VHS films just became worse.

When this one dies I'll no doubt get a 4K ready TV, unless it costs much more than an 'old' 1080p one and maybe one day someone will start to broadcast something in 4k and I'll be staggered at the quality - for about a week, then it will just become the new normal. Hardly seems worth spending a grand on.

Really? Which one?

Tx50a400b

...and if you think the 500 series would be better (tx50as500b), from looking at the spec its seems to be the same tv but with smart added

future proof in a market that's changing so rapidly?

The market is, and isn't, changing rapidly. TV manufactures are throwing our innovations left right and centre. But theres been no move from broadcasters in terms of what they're commissioning. At present broadcasters ask for delivery in 1080p and with a very specific set of parameters, and they won't accept a deviation from those parameters for more than a very small percentage of each programme - to allow the inclusion of archive footage, maybe something shot on a go-pro or a phone or whatever. Even though production companies are investing in 4K cameras in the hope that they are future-proofing, for the present they can still only deliver in 1080p, whatever they shoot on. If/when broadcasters decide on a new deliverable format it will basically be decided on the cameras that the BBC wants to buy, not the tellies in people's living rooms.

The current broadcast standards reflect a bulk purchase of Canon 305s. The next standard will be based on whatever pro-sumer camera the BBC can hand to an assistant producer who's done a day's camera training and say 'go out and get some vox-pops'

That camera doesn't exist yet, but whenever it does, it'll be effectively the lowest common denominator - what that camera delivers will shape whats being broadcast and in turn what TV you'd want to watch that on.

The market is, and isn't, changing rapidly.

+1

The electronics manufactures might be throwing new innovations and new standards at us all the time but it takes a very long time for any of these to actually become established.

HD resolution came out years ago yet very few freeview channels have HD channels. Not sure what percentage of Sky is HD and don't you also have to pay more for the H channels? Similar thing with Blu Ray, it came out years ago yet I think only 50% of my friends have blu ray players.

Yes there is 4K content to be found but it probably ends up costing a lot of money. AFAIK most of it is online so you're going to need a fast connection and lots of bandwidth.

If you are a gadget freak who always needs the best stuff and doesn't mind spending the cash then go for 4K, super smart etc... Otherwise I think your average consumer is fine for a few years yet with just a full HD TV.

Cougar - Moderator
Then make sure it's got optical output
Eh?

The stuff talked about at CES is either at a big premium or years away from the mainstream.

Buy a 1080p TV at the size you want and as "nice" image quality as you can afford. Get one with plenty of HDMI inputs.

I appreciate that this isn't going to pass muster with the TV snobs but I got one of these recently and it's really good, especially at the price - £400 for 50" (with no smart extras 🙂 ). As such, if 4k really becomes a must have in a couple of years, it's not much money to replace.

http://www.tesco.com/direct/toshiba-50l2436db-50-inch-full-hd-1080p-led-tv-with-freeview/778-0699.prd

Optical out for sound - I have mine set up like this - an old-ish Panasonic paired with an LG soundbar via the optical output.

Oh yeah, I was forgetting about sound bars. When the wrangler of muppets was talking about upgrading the sound I assumed he meant properly. (-: Was confused as to why you wouldn't use HDMI (and why you'd be using the TV tuner as the source anyway).

I appreciate that this isn't going to pass muster with the TV snobs

Au contraire, I think that's a perfect set and good money.

You're not a TV snob, clearly 🙂

It does have optical out too though I don't like that as I then have to use the soundbar remote to adjust volume.

HD resolution came out years ago yet very few freeview channels have HD channels.

More to the point between SD and the current HD was another HD format for cameras and screens that was never adopted by broadcasters at all.

I wouldn't spend money on a TV that does things that broadcasters don't unless I planed to use those features for something other than broadcast telly. I certainly wouldn't pay for features in the expectation that support from broadcasters will follow. Have a think about how long a TV might last and then try and recall how many times broadcasters have changed broadcast formats in your lifetime.

Futureproof?

What do you watch? How good is your eyesight? How well set up is the room for viewing rather than watching?

Unless everything else is perfect get what looks good to your eyes and has some in/out ports that fit (all mine go through the surround sound unit so only 1 HDMI needed)

Whatever you get will be outdated by tech but not by function next year. It took long enough to get HD across the board, imagine how long for 4k or 3d etc.

Currently have the last of the 60" non smart samsungs, works fine does HD and is as good as I'll need for at least 5 years.

I wish I got this much help when posting on the bike part of the forum 🙂

I think shinyites was getting the better of me after seeing the stuff from the show, I have calmed down now and agree with the comments about just getting the one I like best at a price I can live with.

@johnj2000 I am still using an 8 year old HD tv - 720 res. Its a bit rubbish now versus the 1080 ones not least as the bezel is huge and it weighs a ton, it has better speakers than my newer TV. My other HD TV (1080) is 5 years old and still going strong. My GF's TV is 1080 and 5 years old, works well and still looks good. As stated earlier buy the best HD TV you can at a size that works and get Apple TV or some other smart box to sit outside so you can upgrade that if you wish. Also think about external speakers, these modern and thin TVs look good but sound rubbish

I'm not looking forward to when my TV dies. I don't want a bloody sound bar I want the sound to come out of my TV.

I think you should be thinking of getting the best performance out of your budget for a reasonable return over time. My 28" Pannasonic CRT with DVD and Sound system bought in the sale in 2004 for about £300 is still the best watching solution in my house and family favourite for films.

A 2008 expensive Panasonic 32" Plasma is runner up picture wise and we also have several 1080P offerings from Sony (Bravia) and Panasonic, in other rooms. The blacks are not as good as the CRT, better on the plasma, and for that the picture seems to lack definition and contrast and in turn the richness of the natural colours seems to suffer.

The best 4k display I have seen is the Dolby mega expensive grading monitor which is exceptional, and ultra expensive, but I think I already said that. The 4k monitors are going to become cheaper as the tech filters down.

Even with all these screens Mrs Zzz and I often watch on the 17" mac HD laptop screen as since the viewing distance is so small, it is like being at the cinema, even streaming at 720P. So maybe look at the iMac 5k if you want to try going big on the res, that'll be future proof for a few years. You can also probably attach whatever accessory needed through Thunderbolt 2 that way? Sound stuff and other stuff?

Future proof tv? As has been pointed out, go for the best picture, with as few bells and whistles on the set, and pay as much as you can afford.
I've owned three sets since the 1980's, a Panasonic 21" FST, a Philips 32" CRT widescreen, and my current Sony Bravia.
The first two each lasted somewhere between ten and fifteen years, the Sony is five or six years old now, and will likely last about the same.
The Sony has no smart functions, it's sound is bypassed into my old Yamaha DSP A/V amp, which has a Sky+ box feeding the sound via fiberoptic, and if I want smart functions they're provided by my Mac Mini.
I only very, very rarely use the set for terrestrial TV, if I miss something I just download it via the Sky box.
The only reason for having smart functions on a set that I can see is if that's the only way someone has to access stuff extra to the TV programs, but most people I'm sure have multiple sources these days.
Mine is pretty much just a 40" monitor.

As a development lead for one of the biggest broadcaster in the country I would strongly suggest you don't waste your money on a 4k UHD tv. It'll be a paper weight before you know it, similar to those early "HD ready" TVs at the early adoption of HD.

[quote=nemesis ]I appreciate that this isn't going to pass muster with the TV snobs but I got one of these recently and it's really good, especially at the price - £400 for 50" (with no smart extras ). As such, if 4k really becomes a must have in a couple of years, it's not much money to replace.
> http://www.tesco.com/direct/toshiba-50l2436db-50-inch-full-hd-1080p-led-tv-with-freeview/778-0699.prd
br />

Snob. I've just bought one of these: http://www.tesco.com/direct/blaupunkt-40148-40-inch-full-hd-1080p-led-tv-with-freeview-hd/372-5799.prd?pageLevel=&skuId=372-5799 Worried by all this talk of TVs lasting at least 5 years though, as it's replacing a 17yo 25" Sony narrow screen CRT (for about half what that cost IIRC).

This is getting interesting, so I have always thought the 'smart' TVs thing was a bit gimmicky but I do love the idea of having the tv connected to the rest of the devices in the house. We currently have a 6 month old iMac, and iPad, various windows laptops and kindle fires. Bearing in mind all these have Bluetooth and wireless capability I s there a simple way of connecting the whole lot? I don't know why I would want to do this yet, it was a comment by someone earlier that started me thinking.

My guesses...

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you're happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Upscaling is a complete fraud. Cougar has it, you can't invent information. TVs just take a best guess at the bits it is missing - detail doesn't magically appear.

"Smart" features for local network playback (etc) look very likely to stick and expand, improve on connectivity with popular devices (ipad/phone/android), perhaps standardise on a few media server types. More internet capabilities also likely. Exactly what this collection of smart features will all look like, I haven't a clue, but networks are (generally) starting to move toward multiple content sources (satellite + internet + cable all-in-one), so expect the TVs to do the same.

mf
(ex-set top box SW eng)

[quote=mrmonkfinger ]4k needs bandwidth, lots of it.

Fortunately the majority of people now have (or will be getting in the very near future) lots of bandwidth. I don't think it's broadcasting which is likely to be the hold up. I just downloaded a 60 minute programme in HD, which was just under 1GB. If 4k is 4 times the bandwidth, then that's 4GB per hour, or about 9Mbps. Even on my old fashioned cheap copper connection here I'm getting 15Mbps - maybe not quite enough to stream that reliably, but I'd assume anybody buying a 4k telly would happily pay for fibre. The way we get content is changing.

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you're happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Not entirely sure they will upgrade while such big performance jumps for home broadband keep being made. Average UK broadband speed is now over 18Mbps, which is capable of 4K. Do some cleverer caching during quiet times and it could be workable on slower. Makes no sense to do the huge upgrades needed to broadcast it when more and more TV watching is streamed (inc catchup services) anyway.

The futureproofing thing reminded me of my parents who buy a new TV once in a blue moon and spent a fortune on a 1080p Panasonic when it was a new thing, back before any HD broadcasts. It was used purely for SD Sky broadcasts and DVDs until last year when they finally caved and got Sky+ and a blu-ray player.

Buy for what you can watch on it now, not for what you think you might maybe want to watch in 5+ years time. Keep the money you saved in the bank for your next TV.

It may take some time for the broadcast and internet infrastructure to catch up with 4k but 4k Blu-ray will be coming along soonish.

Not entirely sure they will upgrade while such big performance jumps for home broadband keep being made.

You're probably right. I'd expect stuff like NetFlix 4k to expand, a lot.

Average UK broadband speed is now over 18Mbps, which is capable of 4K

Out in the sticks we can't stream HD, and at busy times even SD is way below real time... But technically, sure, web based streaming makes 4k possible.

Bandwidth won't quite be 4x 1080pHD levels, the compression has been improved a notch. But the improvements to video compression are down to fractional levels with new codecs, so it won't be far off 4x... Especially if you actually want a decent picture that doesn't have lots of codec artifacts...

As for my previous bandwidth comment - I meant on the existing broadcast networks - the odd flagship channel on satellite will end up in UHD (sky sports 1, etc) but the existing HD channels were a squeeze. So any UHD will come at the expense of something else (check the BBC News HD compression, for instance)

My guesses...

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you're happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Itll cost a bit but not as much as your guessing, the biggest problem for us is getting the content to the customers. The Satellite "networks" will not need upgrading, just the compression used and with HEVC compression its possible to put a UHD channel within a current Satellite transponder (there is a test channel up there now by Eutelsat). The Studios will also just need tweaking, we have proved and tested this, its just the current solution (quad 3G SDI) is a real pain in the ass to do.

The bandwidth is a problem but the situation is getting better. I've tested contribution delivery bit rates of UHD content over satellite and fibre, our bit rates are up to 300mbps and we can do this fine. Its again getting it back to the customer, Netfliks 18Mbps UHD content is shocking and makes me laugh. To stream over the net you will need rates up to 30mbps for it to look half decent.

The reason broadcasters are not jumping on it is because the future is uncertain. UHD-1 in its first phase is not a game changer, ive watched Football, Golf, Tennis and Formula 1 and come away unimpressed as do alot of my colleagues. UHD Phase 1.5 is what is really needed, this brings HDR, frames rates up to 120fps (really needed imo) and higher colour gamut. The UHD content will be much more of an immersive expereince then. We also have the big issue of viewing distance, viewing distance is critical. We are on the edge of what are eyes can see, its a fine line between being able to see the detail and missing it completely. You need to sit closer to the screen than you would a normal HD tv or you need to buy a larger tv. Most people are not going to move their sofas, most European homes don't have the room to accommodate a 60" plus tv in the living room.

The Satellite "networks" will not need upgrading, just the compression used and with HEVC compression its possible to put a UHD channel within a current Satellite transponder (there is a test channel up there now by Eutelsat)

I thought bandwidth was already tight on the satellites. Is there another one being put up or are the channels being shuffled (with SD getting a bit of a downgrade)?

Netfliks 18Mbps UHD content is shocking and makes me laugh. To stream over the net you will need rates up to 30mbps for it to look half decent.

Yeah, 18mbps is crap. Less than SkySports HD if memory serves me. I've been out of the broadcast business for a little while now but I remember 60-80mpbs being the guess for 4k, is that still about right?

There is free transponder space, things will no doubt get shuffled around and decommissioned if a UHD channel was launched.

UHD-1 Phase 1 HEVC compression is coming up at about 45mbps. Phase 1.5 is unknown as the technology isnt here yet but it will be more granted.

HEVC contribution technology also isnt here yet, to get the content back from stadium to studio we are having to do synchronised quad MPEG 4 encodes at about 200mbps which is a really ropey way to do it. We then decode and distribute this around the studios as 4 separate video feeds, again a ropey way of doing it.

I personally think its going to be atleast 4 years before you see decent quality UHD at home. Sure some broadcasters may jump on it and launch a UHD phase 1 channel but it will leave alot of people unimpressed (a bit like netflixs attempt).

Sod the details. There's only one way to engage in the audio-visual buying process these days

[img] [/img]

Futureproof...?

Our 32" Sony CRT still works well with a HUMAX freeview box plugged in.

🙂

TBH I'd worry primarily about the quality of the panel, just say bollocks to all the on board features they sell it with, and start looking at connectivity...

More important than integrated crap they're going to stop supporting within 36 months of you buying, is whether you can plug in something genuinely useful like streaming devices say a chromecast/FireTV/AppleTV/NowTV/etc, a games console or a blueray player, a PC perhaps?
and What the external audio connectivity is like...
Number of USB/HDMI ports, audio out channels? it's dull but more useful in the long term.

The "Future" IMO is all about kit that allows you to lay your hands on non-broadcast, online media, TV manufacturer's wanting to sell you something you think will do this for the next decade or so, when in reality you won't be able to watch netflix inside of five when the firmware fails to keep up, it all means they can flog you telly's more frequently...

Fine if it comes with "Smart" features, I'd be more interested to know what I can plug into it when the "Smart" bit's are superseded...

Some people say the 4k sets upscale better, but without that consideration I would just get a decent quality 1080P set that has good colors, or get it calibrated to have.

Then spend any money that you would have been tempted to spend on a 4K set on ensuring that you have decent quality HD feeds into it, like a decent and reliable internet connection for catchup and netflix.

Also a good number of HD TV channels (Virgin XL for example)and a decent PVR - as what is the point of having a HD set and then watching poor quality SD catchup?

Any more spend should go on ensuring that you have as good an audio setup as you can get as audio is a large part of the viewing experience.

By the time 4K becomes standard then 4k sets will have moved on a lot, so they only reason to buy one now is the possibly better upscaling performance - although this is a moot point if you are receiving good quality 1080P anyway - a 1080P tv won't have to upscale a 1080P signal, whereas a 4K tv will (and possibly screw-up/add artifacts).

You can get a half decent TV for £300-£400.

A work colleague bought a SMART/3D TV about 2 years ago, and paid a fortune for it as 3D was the latest invovation then. You can now buy similar TV's for a fraction of what they paid.

I would wait until they start broadcasting in 4k, then the prices will drop.

£300 to £400 will get a TV that does all you need with a good picture.

Ok so I am looking at as big as I can afford at 1080 with as many output points as possible. What sort of additional fun stuff for a fully connected house can I get using a Mac as the main device? Or do. Need to buy some kind of server gizmo for that?

Chromecast?

The other issue with 4K, infrastructure and delivery aside, is source. Your programmes have to be shot in 4K or it's all moot.

And IMHO we should be getting HD right first. I still have to hop between HD and SD channels whenever they switch to regional broadcasts, which is dim.

Your programmes have to be shot in 4K or it's all moot.

some people say that 4K sets can scale up to 1080P better than a 1080P set.

4K gives a noticeably better picture

Surely only if you have a gigantic screen or a small room, or both?

Upscaling - you can't get detail that's not there, but you can smooth out lines, so things will still look better upscaled. However it's a necessity when you have more pixels on your display than your source so not some fancy feature - all tellies will do it to some extent.

Ok so I am looking at as big as I can afford at 1080

I woudl say get the one that suits your room. Too big is as bad as too small. Or possibly worse.

I bought one of these [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sharp-LC-90LE757K-inch-1080-pixels/dp/B00E63DHDY ]90" Sony TVs[/url] about two years ago. I certainly wouldn't consider getting 4k for at least three years

Holy cow! That is a huge TV bigblack! Now please tell me you put it in the front room of a small one bed apartment.