Now that looks like the answer.
Here’s a collection of anamorphic lens flares captured by a Red (type of cinema camera) and distributed as a post-production pack. Some of those really look like what I’m seeing in the OP’s clip. More and more I think my first guess is correct.
I think maybe we are having a communications error? I thought by “noise” you meant a glitch in a recorded video broadcast transmission or streaming causing macroblocking artifacts–the digital version of static.
You may have the answer. Darren Garrison’s remarks about recording format may or may not have anything to do with it. Anamorphic lens effects predate digital recording and display methods.
The same ‘static’ can affect the hardware as well, before and after any transmission or storage encoding/decoding. I accept your apology.
Data errors in an MPEG file or similar encoded format often produces rectangular artifacts (“macroblocks”) because video encoders generally encode rectangular blocks. I would not expect data errors on raw bitmap data to produce similar rectangular artifacts; there would be either random incorrect pixels, or perhaps linear artifacts that stretch horizontally and wrap around the screen edge. I don’t see how errors unrelated to encoding could produce rectangles.
The next episode had more flares, but they looked more normal and I wouldn’t have paid them any attention if it weren’t for the blocky one. Maybe it was a rare alignment of conditions.
All it takes is some interference at a frequency matching the the vertical scan rate. For a whole bunch of reasons this is rarely a problem these days.
When first looking at this I couldn’t make out the horizontal smear to the right of the colored blocks, I only saw the blocks. If I had seen that I wouldn’t have asked why the responses were indicating a flare.
Deliberately inserted artifact of the digital era. Like those hexagons and circles that were common in pre 80’s analog shots. This footage seems an odd place to put the thing, as they always implied a strong light source.
That’s kind of why I’m leaning towards not a post-process effect but rather a natural flare. But then, why would you leave that flare in there and not reshoot it? It is kind of odd. (And the strong light source is the sun to the left, of course.)
Lens flares used to be a thing that cinematographers and photographers worked really hard to avoid, then later, some of them decided it was a feature of the art form to be embraced and perhaps pursued in its own right. I suppose it’s like visible brush strokes in an oil painting; if you’re aiming for photorealism or romantic realism, you keep the brush strokes small and soft and inconspicuous; if you want to make it consciously clear to the viewer that they are observing art, you might go the Van Gogh route.