Poor Quality Historic Movies

Your species has been recording moving images for over 100 of your Earth years. Prior to that, there were only still photographs, and before that, people with paper, charcoal, and artistic talent.

Many of the oldest movies, particularly those from World War 1, have been restored, digitised, "cleaned up" and often colourized - as a result, although they retain their jerky, low res quality, the visual impact on the audience is substantially increased.

However, when there's a documentary about the Napoleonic Wars (where the English beat up the french) or the battle of Agincourt (where the English beat up the french) or Culodden (where the English beat up the scots) or the the English Civil War (where, being unable to find opponents worthy of their mettle, the English beat up each other), the filmmakers employ actors (or re-enactors) in appropriate costume to portray the events under scrutiny.

The problem is (with the exception of epic productions like "Gettysburg") that it doesn't look that convincing. Although it was "a long time ago", the action looks too new, fresh and polished.

Now, BorgCo Studios are researching the possibility of intentionally making such historic reenactments convincingly "low quality". Scenes will be shot in long takes, with minimal editing, and from a fixed POV; wide angle lenses will be used with few close ups, and slow, jerky panning. Once recorded, the HD video with be converted to monochrome, have occasional frames randomly deleted, duplicated or distorted, and various blemishes and scratches will be added. The resultant footage will then be colourized.

Thus when watching Xerxes crossing the Hellespont, or William IV crossing the Boyne, the viewer will see not a 1920's Hollywood pastiche with cardboard armour and wooden swords, nor a historically accurate but altogether too modern depiction of events, but something that gives the illusion of being "restored contemporary footage" of the actual event.