I beg to differ cine has always been much larger than stills film in terms of coating area, and it may still be large today. To keep a coater going there is large fixed overhead, it is only economic if the coater is busy.
The past is irrelevant. The presence and future are relevant for film production. A lot has changed in film production in the last years. The manufacturers have restructured. And in lots of ways much more successfully than the "experts" have thought. Especially than most of all the "experts" here on apug (honestly, lots of them are only "Dampfplauderer").
Cine film production is today almost irrelevant for photo film production. Because the vast majority of film manufacturers simply is not in this business (any more). It is not needed to keep photo film production going in general. Maybe with one exception, see below.
If Eastman stops coating cine then they will also stop coating still? Unless they move to a smaller lower overhead machine, which they used to have but may have scrapped.
Eastman Kodak is the only one which, at least as of their own comment last autumn, needs the cine film volume to keep the coating line running.
That seems to be the current situation.
But will it be the same in 2,3,4 years?
What if the photo film revival get stronger in the next years?
Will that be enough to keep Kodaks line running even if the cine film demand continue to decrease? Who knows.
Fact is:
Eastman Kodak has so far much more successfully restructured their production than all the self-proclaimed "experts" here on apug have thought. All these "doom and gloom" sayers and even former Kodak employees said in the last years that it will be impossible for Kodak to run their line on a smaller scale with a relative small team of employees.
But they are doing exactly that now: Running Building 38 with only 300 engineers and technicians. That is almost "the Ilford scale".
They have proven their critics wrong.
I had a very interesting talk at last Photokina with Kodak Alaris. And got some background information which let me be relative optimistic that Kodak photo film production can be continued even without cine film production. At least if we see a sustainable demand for photo film (which is also in our own hands: stop wasting your time with "doom and gloom", go out shooting instead).
But I said it once, I say it twice: Please stay on topic.
Cine film is completely irrelevant for the topic of this thread! This thread is about the current strategy in silver-halide products of Fujifilm.
Fujifilm has stopped cine film production (only with the exception of archival films) already in 2013.
They don't need cine film production to continue photo film production.
They have proven all the "doom and gloom" sayers here on apug wrong who said that would not be possible.
Xmas, just forget this "cine film is needed for photo film production" apug talk.
It is a thing of the past, not relevant any more (well in some parts of the industry it has never been relevant, not even in the past).
This talk is now for the "bullshit talk" area. Just a waste of time. Like most from the doom and gloom talkers.
Go out, shoot film, have fun.
Get other photographers interested in shooting film.
Stop this permanent nonsense doom and gloom talk: You're discouraging people who are thinking about getting into film and reading here on apug. Which is absolutely counterproductive!!!
Please look at your friend Ricardo: He is doing it much much better than you. He is encouraging people to use film.
That is what we all here on apug should do.
Best regards,
Henning