DrDre said:

Thanks for the compliments! Glad to hear you enjoy the work and screenshot comparisons. I also often use mobile devices for the screenshot comparisons, because the zooming on mobile devices makes it easier to look at the details, than to put your face against your computer screen.

As with most techniques, there are many ways to implement the methodology. However, as a rough guide, a super resolution algorithm defines a reference frame, and subsequently estimates how objects, often defined as image patches, can be mapped onto the reference frame. The image patches are then averaged using some form of weighted averaging, where the weights are related to the similarity to the reference frame. The weighting reduces the chance of wrong detail placement, the socalled registration error. After the averaging the resulting frame is deblurred leading to the final result.

DrDre said:

I will try to create a video sample as soon as possible.

1920-wide upscales are possible, only it won't add much in terms of detail, so an HD-TV's internal upscaler will probably approach the same quality.

Thank you for you detailed replies! One thought that I had is that multiplying the Standard Definition picture area by 4 would closely approximate "Full HDTV" 1920x1080 dimensions (though non-anamorphic black letterbox bars will not be contributing at all to vertical resolution). Would this not make the enlargement process computationally simpler than upscaling ~480 pixels across to 1280 across? A factor of exactly 4 (4 x 480 = 1920) seems as though it would be simpler (and perhaps visually "cleaner") for the computer to map pixels, rather than a factor of ~2-2/3. The current method, though producing amazing results with a smaller output file, seems like there would be some heavier computation and possibly a SR upscale slightly less than its full potential, due to the ~2.66 x <480 computation.

EDIT: Clearly I had a major fail with my horizontal resolution spec. 480 is a vertical resolution spec.