My take is that this situation applies to evidence the defense has acquired. I don't think the _defense_ is required to share it voluntarily (although it could probably still be subpoenaed if the prosecution was aware of its existence). I.e. if Joe Shmoe was being charged with burglary, and someone sent his a lawyer a video of him committing the crime, his lawyer is not required to disclose the existence of the video. If the prosecution found out that it existed, they could still subpoena it. Although I don't know if you could subpoena it from Joe Shmoe, that's beyond my limited reading. You could definitely subpoena it from whoever sent it to the defense, as their right against self-incrimination doesn't apply.
I am unsure about the status of a video as "physical evidence". My assumption would be that a VHS tape is physical evidence, but an mp4 attachment to an email is not.
As an example, if a client gives his lawyer a murder weapon, the defense has to disclose that. If the client tells his lawyer where the murder weapon is buried, the lawyer is not required to disclose that [2].
[1] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publicat...
[2] https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=... page 5 (page 900 if you go by the numbers on the text).
Providing said video doesn't seem any more self-incrimination than the prosecution asking for a warrant to get written evidence that is in possession of the accused, say, though the line there might start getting blurry if the video is something routinely filmed from the accused's viewpoint. But if it's filmed by a third party, I doubt the self-incrimination provisions would extend to it in any way...