rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]

I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.

So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.

I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.

One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.