much more people gave up on astrophotography because the rotation of the earth was wrecking their long exposure photos... you can always find an excuse if you need one ;-P

did you activate the noise reduction "master switch" on top of the noise reduction section? otherwise the sliders don't do anything.

not true, jpg does not save pixels, does not save RGB pixels and progressive jpg does not interleave pixels in a different order

bad example. these pictures show the difference between editing vs not editing rather than raw vs jpeg - nearly the same result can be obtained by editing the jpeg

if we can see multiple bands of light, like @chiron says, then the shutter "movement" is obviously too slow to capture the whole scene during the single "peak of light" so no amount of "flicker reduction" trickery can help. this is the unfortunate performance limitation of all electronic shutters, except rare cases, like a9, where the electronic shutter (1/150s) is only slightly slower than mechanical (1/250s). electronic shutter in most cameras is several times slower than mechanical and they are useless for flickering light, for example a7III is 1/16s or 1/28s depending on the mode.

I agree that my guess about the gimp's incorrect guess might be incorrect :-o my gimp exports jpeg using the "original quality", so I thought this is the universal default but it is possible that my default was changed!

is the apple more green or more round? ;-)

if you care about individual channels, simply use RAW data. adjusting invididual RGB gains is then on your side and you can process everything in a predictable way, instead of relying on undisclosed algorithms hidden in the camera software.

one can say that the low sensitivity to borderline uv is a "technical issue" but it is also a "physiological issue", and the one you can't really solve without implanting a different kind of eyes. we can't realistically make our screens emit 1000W of UV in hope that 0,1% of that will be capture by our eyes, producing desired results.

the question itself is the better answer to the question than this answer

If you can produce a state of the art lens, you are probably able to reverse engineer your competitor. But then you are serious enterprise who wont break patent laws? I don't know... and there is a similar question here: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/65126/…