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.
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part). And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution. Especially in 1994. 50D of course, but even more so, the option of shooting Vista Vision or 65mm. In the case of the filmmakers desiring a grainless image but they couldn’t achieve it, that is because of budget limitations (either from the stock they could afford or the amount of light they needed). And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production? That would mean redoing vfx, painting out wires, rerecording ADR, etc. No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).