The Red One at 4k is about 3.2k resolution optically, if you test it with a resolution chart.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that that's similar to the resolution you get with video cameras with 2/3" optics and a prism. Video cameras are 1920x1080 at the most (many formats are less horizontally), and prism alignment is never perfect, but even if it were, you'd never get more than 1920 lines horizontally, which is far less than the Red One's 3.2k, or even the 2.8k you claim. Besides, they're claiming "4X HD", which would mean 3840 pixels horizontally, and 3.2k is quite close to that.

Also, I'd generally be skeptical of anything "scientifically proven by Kodak". There are certainly very smart people working on Imaging Science for Kodak, but there's a tiny bit of vested interest in making digital look worse than film here. Hell, if you go to the website for Kodak motion picture products, more than half the front page real estate consists of ads for why film is still better, digital has lots of problems, film is the standard for professionals, etc. I think Kodak doth protest too much...

I was hoping they were using that 3D information to do something interesting to actually restore the image. They're not.

They're basically using rudimentary 3D information that they can get out of the scanner to determine that a crease exists. They then remove it with a simple infill algorithm, which is as basic as it gets (although it often works ok), and which you can find in most image editing software. It's no coincidence that the example image they use has a crease going over mostly similarly colored and low-detail areas.

So what they're doing is not an improvement to restoration, it's just an improvement to defect detection. Basically, it saves you having to tell the software where the defect to be fixed is, the fixing is the same quality as it's always been.