To those that have stated they think this is a foul, can you explain what you are basing that conclusion on?
To believe a double hit foul occurred as an observer, one or more of the following things had to have occurred:
1) The speed of the cue ball had to have increased as a result of the second hit
2) The cue ball speed had to have been abnormally fast for the type of hit, one example being where the cue ball follows closely behind the object ball at almost the same speed after a fuller ball hit.
3) The direction of the cue ball had to be abnormal / had to have changed as a result of the second hit.
4) You had to have clearly seen the tip hit the cue ball twice.
You could possibly add a number 5), that you heard a double hit, but I find this one to be less than reliable in the absence of any of the other things above, and even more so when one or more balls are colliding with each other immediately after the cue ball leaves the tip (which is the case here).
The speed of the cue ball does not appear to have increased at any point, the cue ball speed is not abnormally fast for the type of hit, the path and direction and reaction of the cue ball is perfectly normal and never appears to change, you certainly can't see a double hit (even with the luxury of frame by frame analysis), and even though its less than reliable, particularly in this situation, you can't hear anything that sounds like a double hit either. So if you believe this is a double hit, what is making you believe that?