This is up mostly to "push down" this post.

I did a google on SDTV and got some information, but not an answer. I think the answer is personal, what you need/want/expect and what you're willing to pay. SDTV (Digital) crt-based is a step up from analog, but not HD. Also progressive is better than interlaced, e.g., 480p better than 480i (active scan lines in the broadcast tv signal).

Both Canon and Toshiba are working on it ... it's called SED. :-)

The release of SED TV keeps getting pushed back , sometime in 2008 now is what they are saying . Apparently they can't make them price competitive and are having problems with the screen technology , so when they finally do come out they will be expensive .

As far as standard definition tv goes the biggest selection of SD sets I have seen lately is at the local Walmart as the big electronic retailers seem to be gradually phasing them out along with CRT rear projection HDTV sets . Once you get used to HDTV though SDTV looks very grainy in comparison .

I did purchase a Sanyo SDTV flat screen crt-type 27" tv from Walmart. It replaces a similar Sanyo that gave 8.5 years before it developed any problems. As I'm on analog cable the digital capability isn't being used. The tv is better than the old in that it has a flat screen and can be seen better at a wider angle than could be done with the "regular" tub type. It has a few less features, no PIP, no Clock, but these are features I didn't use, well I did look at the clock when I was too lazy to raise my wrist.

I checked with DirectTV to see about going to a Dish rather than cable. My assumption being as Dish is digital I might be able to make use of the improvements of the digital tuner. DirctTV told me I'd need their set-top box and would need to pay $4.95 additional for each additional set-top. Still, the cost is lower than cable for two sets. I'm still thinking I may go to a dish network and assume, I didn't ask yet, that the dish set-top can put out a digital signal. They advertise they have a better signal than analog tv, but that's of interest only if one can get it to the tv. I'm still running a 20" Sanyo analog in my office, so I still need analog too.

you raised several questions.
first i assume you want a 4:3 TV instead of a 16:9 tv.
you can still easily find them, but soon, all programs will be converting to the wide screen aspect ratio.

second, whatever tv you buy now, you want to get an ATSC tuner as well as NTSC. NTSC is the current scheme, but in 2 years it will all be digital broadcasts and NTSC will be dead. if you will always have a cable or satellite box, this isnt a big deal, but if you want over the air programs or regular cable, it will be an issue.

right now is a big transitional phase, early adopters are happier now that most locals and prime time are available in 16:9 HD, the remainder see no difference, but will be left behind in the next year or two.

my advice. buy something 16:9 and ATSC tuner. flat panels are lighter and cooler anyway, but CRT will always be king or picture quality. RIP

" soon all programs will be converting to the wide screen aspect ratio."

Where are you getting that from ? 16:9 aspect ratio is hi def tv and while all broadcasts are going digital Feb ,19 2009 , they are not all going to be in hi def . The digital signal will carry standard def , enhanced def , and hi def . It's up to each individual tv network to buy the very expensive HD equipment to give them the capability to transmit in HD , so it will be a slow gradual process that won't happen overnight . And since most sets in the U.S. are still 4:3 standard def it's likely to take a long long time for all broadcasts to be in 16:9 aspect HD . In the meantime those that do will have an SD variant on cable systems , like they now do if they want access to over 200 million viewers (50 million HD sets estimated in use now , the rest still SD) . Most new CRT standard def sets have digital tuners in them and I've noticed those that don't are clearly marked as not being compatible with dtv .

Just for an example , direct tv now has the capability for 100 channels in HD with their new satellite in orbit . The reason they don't have all those channels is because there aren't that many tv networks with HD broadcast equipment yet !

Here is a link that might be useful: Is dtv the same as hdtv ?

It's a common misconception that digital = high definition. It does not.

I agree that DTV and HDTV are different, but if you live in a major metro area, you will see that all stations are simply moving to 16:9 as the DTV transition happens. when my local news is in 16:9, all primetime shows are in 16:9, daytime soaps are in 16:9, sports are all moving to 16:9... get my drift. even networks like food and lifetime are movin to HD.

please stop trying to point out flaws as a form of superiority. go to hometheatermag and take a look at their HD lineup, your 4:3 theory is incredibly wrong.

I have an HD tv and only wish you were right . But right now it's a matter of numbers with about 20 channels on my cable system available in HD , which are also offered in SD . Fifty million HD sets have been sold in the U.S. , but if you read the HD forums many of those are being bought by videophiles as their second or third HD sets . In my place of work less than 20 people out of 130 total have gone HD . Until the price of HD sets drops to a price close to their standard def sets , many people (like Jerry) will keep their reliable (10-15 year) SD sets . Believe me , like you the change to 16:9 HD can't happen soon enough for me . But being realistic (not superior) it's going to be a gradual change over the course of a decade , not two or three years . So we agree it's going to happen , just disagree over the timeframe .

I think you are arguing one thing and i am arguing another.
look at this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=164671
my point is that the 4 major networks, espn, CW, discovery, BBC, PBS, food, hgtv, etc. probably cover 80-90% of what everyone watches. it doesnt matter that it is only 20 channels.
True, only 50 million sets have been sold, but HD material is available to 90% of america (abc.com) and on probably 80-90% of the material that is actually being viewed.

I am arguing availablity, you are arguing market penetration. i dont care if my grandma ever gets HD, i have what i want now and anyone that is in the market for a new TV will be missing out for the next 8 years if they go 4:3.

Network tv relies heavily on sponsors , so what sense would it make for them to write off millions of their target audience with an old tech set waiting for it to die or the price of the new sets to drop , or more channels to be available in HD ? That is why cable systems offer both SD and HD versions of channels . Right now a person severely limits what they watch if they only watch the few HD channels available . Only one of the seven HBO channels I have is in HD and none of the 11 Encore commercial free movie channels are HD as well as Sci-Fi ,TBS , FX , Speedvision , Spike , USA , AMC , all cable news channels and sports channels that aren't ESPN . HD pickins are slim right now and that is a big reason many are delaying the purchase of an HD set .

to the OP.
read the AVSForums link i provided. if you see alot of stuff you like to watch, and in your area, get HD, you will not be disappointed and PLENTY of material is out there, worst case, you watch it with black bars.

to nine7xbam
are you also going to recommend a plain VCR over a similar priced VCR/DVD combo? his problem isnt should i wait on HD, his problem is i need a TV NOW, what should i get. i agree going out to get an HD set for no reason with his viewing habits is overkill, but since he is going to get one NOW, then he should get HD capability for the next 8 years. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised with the HD availability in the next 2 years. I even have a HD camcorder for under $500.