Moving this video to ant's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality stuff! *promote *hooray and *whatnot!

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by maatc.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by maatc.

FAKE!

(no, seriously though, they used editing tricks to fake that it was the photo of the object the whole time, when in fact the object was real for the in/out of focus shots, then the camera suddenly stops moving an instant before they turn the flat photo around to show the 'illusion')

No. This is not faked.

Then why does the camera stop moving every time they go to show the 'illusion'?

The zoom in, out of focus, shot is done with live objects, the camera goes stationary on a tripod and they line everything up for the 2D, paper version, then, cut from one shot to the other and it looks seamless. It's a very old trick.

These again??? I thought the novelty had worn off last year?

Not to mention the shadows of their hand suddenly appear before they touch the globe, and other little oddities throughout the frame. Including a small exposure change just before the "illusion".

No - you can clearly see that the plane of sharpness and the depth of field give the illusion away (and confirm that the video is not fake) - especially for the baseball at 0:50-1:00 - it is clear that this is an image and not a 3D object. Just like you clearly can see if the glasses are real or not in the final shot.
Quite obvious that the shots with the changing focus aren't faked, especially if you're used to low DoF photography with fast lenses. The plane of sharpness do not follow the 3D shapes when focusing back and forth - the plane follows the still image on the table.

And of course they adjusted the exposure during the shot! They go back and forth from large apertures to small apertures - they had to change the shutter time and/or ISO.

You can also tell that the deepest shadows on the images never get quite dark enough - look at the shadow underneath the globe in the opening shot, versus the deeper blacks on the typewriter and sunglasses. This is easily seen in all the shots, if you know what to look for.
And, stuff like the edges of the papers under the glasses in the final shot - real objects do not have chromatic aberration with a red tint towards the corner of the image and a blue tint towards the centre of the image.

Nope - real.
Of course it isn't one take, but they did not use editing trickery - they do not swap out 3D objects for 2D ones or vice versa.

It's a little funny that they play with the focus as soon as they zoom in. Whether that is indicative of a swaparoo or just to fool our eyes into thinking it's 3D because of a carefully selected focus, i'll let you two argue over.

I think you're on the right track but have it backwards.

I think they were flat sheets the whole time but they're using a tilt-shift lens during the zoom shot to simulate depth of field and make it look like parts of the object are further away.

On the first one, the globe, there is writing on the sheet of paper "under" the globe, yet the perspective never changes; we never see a little bit more of the writing peek out or get obscured as the camera pans around. I'm sure we'd have seen a little bit of this if it were a real object.

*viral *commercial

Adding video to channels (Commercial, Viral) - requested by xxovercastxx.

They weren't using an "special" effects, they simply told the camera to only focus on what is in the center of the lens. So when the camera looked at the top of the "object" it would focus to the very back of the piece of paper and everything else would be out of focus. Move to the bottom of the piece of paper and the top goes out of focus.

I actually guessed the entire desk was a picture at the end, but for a much different reason. When it zoomed on the sunglasses I at first thought nothing of the scene was 2d because the shine on the glasses would be hard to do on a matte, and mainly because all shadows were correct. Then I thought "wait.. what if everything was a picture?" and she pulled the desktop off. So it was more a deductive reasoning and not because I saw anything.

I disagree on the tilt-shift lens (I own one, by the way) - I just think they used a fast wide-aperture lens - they just used it at full aperture and changed the plane of focus back and forth. This is just the simple effect of adjusting the focus. On the shots where everything was in focus they stopped down to get everything sharp.
On the low depth of field shots the camera and lens pivot on a fixed tripod, and you wouldn't get any perspective changes - the camera does not move.
I'm guessing that this was shot with a 70-200/2.8, which is capable of some rather low DoF shots when focused close like this.

Amazing Anamorphic Illusions II/2 has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.