Well, I wrote Kodacolor realizing that Kodak was in Chapter 11 and film is on the way out. But I was hoping that Fuji or maybe something from Europe would be e

Well, I wrote Kodacolor realizing that Kodak was in Chapter 11 and film is on the way out. But I was hoping that Fuji or maybe something from Europe would be equivalent to Kodacolor, as I recall, called color negative film. But I don't know anything about Fuji film either. On scanning resolution, thanks for the detail. So, the resolution I am getting now at Sam's Club, 1818 * 1228 = 2,232,504 maybe isn't too awful. Apparently getting color negative film scanned to something like the old Kodak PhotoCD is still possible at, say, http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html Their Web site mentions files sizes and file types, but I didn't find much on their resolution in pixels. So, net, right, it looks like a current, high-end, Nikon or Canon full frame 35 mm digital single lens reflex camera or even a movie camera with the Canon CCD sensor of the OP will be much better than color negative film in my old Nikormat on sensitivity, i.e., ASA 'film speed' and resolution. So, if I want to dig into photography again, then I should get a sack full of modern equipment and copies of the relevant Adobe software. In the meanwhile, shooting color negative film and getting it scanned at Sam's Club (if they still do that), Wal-Mart, TwoCat, etc. seems like still a relatively good way to take pictures.