The question comes down to what production amount and value of film can keep Kodak in the film business, right? So lets get in the time machine and go back fifty or sixty years, to the days before Kodak introduced the 35mm based 126 Instamatic format.
Any decent camera store stocked B&W Kodak, Ansco, Gavaert, Agfa, Adox and DuPont film. They carried at least two or three brands in a variety of sizes: 122, 118, 116, 616, 120, 620, 127, 828 and 35mm in both 18 and 36 exposure lengths. The corner drugstore likely had both Ansco and Kodak in all of those sizes. How cost effective was that?
The average family stuck an 8 or 12 exposure roll of film in the camera and shot a photo or two of the kids playing in the snow. If they had a flash gun they might have used a bulb or two taking pictures with the Christmas tree and kids showing off their presents. Next was a shot of everybody in their Easter best perhaps followed by a graduation picture. That roll would be finished and another started during summer vacation, etc Yup, they probably shot two rolls a year, maybe three if somebody got married or had a baby! Factor in the fact that the U.S. population was less than half of what it was today.
With all those other film manufacturers competing with Kodak for market share Kodak still managed to make money. If the average American family only uses an average of perhaps two disposeable film camera a year? You do the math.
