The sentiment I was disagreeing with was[…]
Well, it would be a lot easier to understand if you would refrain from using full quotes (which are especially unnecessary whenever replying directly to someone’s message by the way) and instead selectively only start to quote the parts you are actually referring to.
This is plainly false.
This claim you also make after again quoting a bunch of my text including different elements such as the premise of intention, technical limitations and the noise being technically (!) an artefact nominally (!) to be undesired. Instead of precisely picking that up, you throw around a generic “plainly false” while being wrong yourself when it comes to my last statement. Great way of arguing - not.
[…] might learn something about authorial intent.
While I would never dare to claim that such intentions don’t righteously exist, I wouldn’t oversell the concept of such authorial intent either though if I see what questionable decisions directors make nowdays and how many are drowning their movies with the same ugly color grading (especially orange & teal) or AI, just because it’s hip now to do so.
This question also demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to moviemaking as an art form
It seems to me like you try to willingly misinterpet me. At no point I say that certain elements or effects shall not be used in movies if it serves the stilistic purpose. Although much of it could nowdays be created mathematically, if one likes to use technically inferior methods for this to create the maximum authenticity, so be it.
On the other hand, in my opinion, one should also be open to technical progress such as higher frame rates and lower noise floors as technically (!) they are superior, whether one likes the style or not. Vice versa for instance one could also criticize that today it seems to be chic to add artifical noise to purely rendered movies (such as “Migration”) instead of appreciating the clean look of the CGI. The same way, old movies shouldn’t be scrubbed up, new ones shouldn’t necessarily be made to look like a classical movie if they aren’t.
My core argument however and also how that discussion started, only was that noise isn’t part of the image by classical definition (independent on whether one wants to preserve it or not), but an artefact. Philosophically, I have to add though that one could also count the noise as being in fact part of the image to be preserved as it cannot be reliably distinguished from the carried information anyway.
Seems my purely technical / information theoretical remark triggered your protection program in terms of artistic intent and archival, which is unnecessary as when it comes to that, we actually share the same opinion.