Still, the movies of 60's are being "remastered" to Blu-Ray, and I can hear people admiring the look and feel of the images, such as color rendition, the ability to capture different shades of light, etc. -- and resolution, even when it's just a small 35mm frame.
It is very hard to predict what people exactly want!
Well I'm talking about movies as an example now because they are good examples of color neg material that have preserved well and are still easily "available" for anybody to see, but the same applies to still images. People who are lucky to have non-faded slides from the 70's (I'll skip Kodachrome since it's hard to process even if the film would be easier to make, and I can see that easy (home) processing is a MUST in the future) also know what I'm talking about, some of them look very good even with universal standards, even today. If they just look good, they don't need to be compared to anything else.
The point I want to make is, even when these old materials have much lower speed, less sharpness, more grain and more defects such as scratches and dust from keeping, making copies etc., they still show a distinctive look that can be admired. They can show an usable log E range of 10 stops, which may be less than today's 15 stops or so, but they still have enough to compete with digital cameras. They may have the image partly on toe and shoulder (which is unideal from the engineering point), but it's part of film look, for people who are sick of digital clipping. They may have grain, but "it's supposed to be there". And... They may be slow, as slow as ISO 50 or so, but people still find ways to use them easily. ISO 1 would be a bit too slow
!
It may be very "low-tech look" from the viewpoint of an engineer, but my assertions remain;
1) Those, who strive for extreme "cleanliness" and "smoothness" more than anything, have mostly gone digital. Of course some remain, but most of them are BW enthusiasts.
2) Those, who need extreme sensitivity (speed), have mostly gone digital, because it gives up to two stops more speed than even the most modern films (usable ISO 3200 vs. usable ISO 800 in color).
3) Snapshooters have mostly gone digital, which is of course a pity since they can be used to make money to support other segments
... then, the point is, who are remaining? I think the people who remain;
A) already accept that film has grain
B) already accept that image may have slight physical defects if it cannot be avoided
C) already accept that film is somewhat slow in ISO speed
So, they MIGHT be content with lower-tech film. I don't want to make it sound like an absolute conclusion, because I don't know, I'm just expressing how I feel the "analog photography community".
The point I want to make is that I would gladly accept the films from the 60's even today in my palette of choices. In fact I'd like to have them in any case, even just out of interest. But if other films would disappear, then there would be no question about it! I wouldn't abandon film even if the technical quality dropped a few decades.
Some people would complain but that's inevitable, people will complain no matter what and they have right to do that.
But, it's very hard to predict what others think. The somewhat success of the Impossible Project -- I mean, they are producing complete crap in terms of quality, but people are still interested and buying the stuff -- shows there IS interest in low-tech, small scale production of very difficult materials (color instant film!)
Does anyone think like me? And especially, would it be commercially viable even in "small scale"? No one can answer that, we have to wait and see, but I think we could drop the assumption that tomorrow's film has to be as high tech as the most modern Portra 400, if there is no other choice.
