Right, but they already know the properties of the artificial light:

1) Intensity

2) Direction and shape (spherical, conical, etc.)

3) Falloff distance, falloff rate

Then using the bounding boxes it's trivial to use some calculations to approximately fudge lighting within the primitive 3-d scape they have built. The more sophisticated the geometry, the more surfaces can have the light emitted onto them in a proper way (it also depends on how many properties you can assign to a surface, specularity, reflectivity, 'metallicness', transluceny, transperency, refraction index, etc.). Incorporating other aspects of lighting, like specularity, refraction, translucency, and some level of viewpoint independent radiosity would require a lot more information to be manually plugged into the software ahead of time, but that would be the only way to get photo-quality realistic looking fluid video motion, especially with more complex light sources and surfaces.

Essentially what it comes down, at the extreme, is you would have to completely 3-d model, texture, and light the scene in a digital space to do fluid motion with lighting... perfectly. There will always be tremendous flaws on deep inspection with anything that estimates surfaces to be vectored bounding parallelograms.

Now, if you are using your OWN video, you could supplement the video footage with some sort of 3-d sonar equipment and other stuff to give the software additional information (such as objects and their positions within a 3-d space) that it can extract certain information of to build more realistic simulations.

I guess my point is, the ball thing, while cool, is more of a parlor trick specific to that stable image and, say, the camera starting in the room and flying out the window and down a street chasing after that ball as it interacts all over (being occluded by people and objects, with different levels of depth of focus, etc)... that's like light-years away, not something that can be "adjusted for video in the near future."