Video Processing Artifacts

It's curious that the images weren't deinterlaced properly.

Or using a better source video. As there's no way the original film was interlaced.

i have a 46" TV. I suspect the x.264 compression artifacts were becoming a limiting factor (and my eye sight)

"Upscale" is the wrong word here. The film is scanned at a higher resolution. If it was shot on tape then yes it has to be upscaled but almost no films were shot on tape.

The original version at the link is not only black&white and not upscaled in resolution, it also has jerky mis-aligned frames. I'd think there would be a middle ground here, in which that sort of artifact is removed, without adding things like colour, which can only be added by making assumptions that have no basis in the actual images captured.

including digital footage with film grain added in post?

Lower than I expected; I wonder how they transferred it to film? (presumably not with square pixels!).

Download an old cam or telecine and have a look?

You're making an assimilation fallacy and falling to grasp the technical reasons such as proper deinterlacing, frame rate matching, ineffective motion compression, and generally poor upscaling techniques.If you decrypt and grab the pristine content of a 4:3 or 16:9 DVD, then process it properly through Handbrake or such, it will look fine.I did this purposely for a couple of rare old movies because the VHS and streaming copies looked terrible. The DVD versions in various regions are m

There is always 3:2 pulldown too.