Inspect the untouched recording before asking AI to redraw the affected person. Regular horizontal “teeth” along moving edges can be interlacing artifacts: different scan fields capture different moments. A face or arm changing shape is a different problem. Correctly preparing the input may make the apparent defect easier to understand without regenerating any scene content.
Adobe's interlacing overview describes motion combing and the need for appropriate field handling.
Look for a field pattern
Pause where an arm, veil or camera pan moves quickly. Compare that edge with a relatively still object. Combing often follows alternating horizontal lines rather than a free-form change to an object's structure.
Do not diagnose from one compressed screenshot alone. A player may already deinterlace during playback, while a still export shows both fields. Inspect the original's metadata and an editor's interpretation as well as the visible pattern.
Other problems can coexist: compression blocks, motion blur, interpolation ghosts or genuine AI deformation. Write down the specific artifact and the file in which it first appears.
Verify the source interpretation
Check whether the source is progressive or interlaced and whether its field order is known. Use the recording device's documentation or a reliable media report where available. Do not assume every old-looking clip is interlaced.
Incorrect field order can make motion appear to step backward and forward. Changing a frame-rate number alone does not settle that ordering. Preview a short active section after any interpretation change.
Retain the untouched source and make processing choices on a separate working copy. This preserves the option to use a different deinterlacing method later.
Choose a progressive working copy carefully
For a modern progressive edit or an image-based reference extraction, an external editor can produce a suitable progressive copy. The appropriate method depends on the source and the downstream workflow.
Adobe documents a specific deinterlacing option that discards one field and interpolates missing lines. It also distinguishes Flicker Removal from deinterlacing. Do not describe every conversion as lossless or assume a less flickery preview proves that fields were correctly processed.
Check moving hands, fine fabric, text and the timing of contacts in the converted file. A treatment that reduces teeth but damages important detail may need revision.
A fictional family-tape comparison
A proposed wedding-history montage contains an older recording of a parent dancing. A paused frame shows evenly spaced jagged lines around the moving forearm while a stationary wall looks stable. The planned comparison uses the original and one progressive working copy at the same crop and real-time speed.
The review asks whether the arm remains a single readable contour and whether the dance timing survives. If the source itself has an impossible arm shape unrelated to alternating lines, that issue is recorded separately. This fictional example is a diagnostic plan, not a repaired tape or AI result.
Extract references after preparation
If a still or motion reference will be taken from the recording, extract it from the accepted working copy and retain its source time. Otherwise a field artifact may be mistaken for costume detail or an action shape when writing a generation brief.
Do not use a blurred result merely because it hides the lines. Accept the copy when its timing, visible information and playback are suitable for the intended use. Plan new scenes in Imagild Film Studio, with legacy-media preparation completed in an external editor.