I don't know what documentary you saw, but the weave is the same, a three-over-one twill. What I wrote is accurate. The C-14 samples were destroyed by burning in the test except for one sub-sample that was retained for future use. That one has photo-micrographs available and the weave is the same on either side, the one with original Shroud material, and the side with new cotton.
The Zurich C-14 Lab sub-sample of the Shroud of Turin.
Three over-one-twill, just like the rest of the Shroud.
These are FACTS, al_c, not something made up.
The C-14 Sampling location under fluorescent light. Note the greenish
color of the fluorescence on the left areas of dyed cotton threads. The
right hand delineated area is the C-14 master sample with subsamples.
However, the actual map of the sub-samples was later changed and there
were five approximately equal size sub-samples cut from the master sample.
There is very little visible difference between the patched area and the main body of the Shroud except under ultraviolet light. . . and when looked at under a stereoscopic microscope to compare the average size of the threads when one can notice the sizes are slightly different. Measuring them shows the difference.
Ultraviolet Light image of one of the threads from the preserved C-14
sample showing Linen on the Right intertwined with dyed Cotton on the left
fluorescing green wherever there is dye. — Source Dr. Raymond N. Rogers
This is SCIENCE, not a subjective weave difference that would show up on a documentary video, where the threads would run differently than the rest of the cloth. That is just NOT the case. It would be too obvious a difference.
Trust me on this, I have studies the Shroud for over forty years. There were so many errors made by the scientists who did the sampling and documenting of that sampling it almost looks as if it were done with the intent to deliberately sabotage the testing. For example, the original reports claimed that the Arizona a lab receive two samples immediately adjacent to each other, but examination of the photomicrographs that Arizona took of their sample showed they actually received the two sub-samples taken from the the farthest ends from each other, not adjacent samples. . . The Zurich and Oxford samples were swapped with each other from the original reports. This obfuscated the analysis of sub-sample dating.