Why 16 seconds? If you add up all the time that went into set design, costume, makeup, lighting and then only allow 16 seconds (per shot I hope) to get the look nailed then you are not doing justice to the hours that was most likely spent finessing each shot.
You might jag something interesting with someones preset in Resolve or just click on Magic Bullets looks.
I'm confused by your reply. I think we have a misunderstanding. The way I read your comment is if you think I'm asking how to achieve that look "IN" 16 seconds.
I want to create a simular look to the clip "AT" 16 seconds in the YouTube video. The reason for that clip and not the one say at 2 seconds is because they are different looks or tints. At 2 seconds it is very blue. I'm after the nice browns that they where able to get into the clip. It feels like a brownish blue with a washed out look. Here is a still grab of it. I also like the clip following it at 18 seconds. Any help getting me pointed in the right direction would be helpful.
Most of the mood in these two scenes is art direction. The clip@16 is wood tone, flesh tone, Colts jersey (or facsimile thereof) and cool in the pillow. Saturation is probably around 20% maximum, and a very shallow depth of field plus a denser gamma curve toward the bottom lends a very filmic transfer function. Maybe a little bit of chromatic desaturation at the bottom of the luminance curve. There used to be a style of blue-blacks.
Notice how the foliage jumps up in the verandah composition, otherwise it is the same palette. I expect the foothills in the background would have to be treated with a qualification to separate them in order to preserve the misty distance, otherwise, the density curve to keep the foreground semi-silhouette would interfere with that. Some of what is available would depend on whether there was some kind of log-remap going on in the taking camera and codec.
"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.
As Joseph has said, a lot to do with composition, lighting contrast of soft fill in f/ground with bright angled key in b/g. It looks like the colour temp could have been manipulated lower toward blue if using raw codecs or just pulling red down. Certainly quite desaturated and gamma pulled down as well and underexposed to protect highlights.
One way to do this is not apply a LUT to flat contrast desaturated images that are now common but just manipulate the gamma and/or curve and possibly further desaturate.
The RHS of frame seems to have a grad to darken whatever detail was on the right. It makes the edge of the bed go into gloom. It is quite heavy and unsubtle but works to avoid drawing the eye to some detail that was perhaps distracting.
And I would add to what the others say with this observation: Ultimately, the look of a scene is more tied to the art direction (set design, props, etc.) and the cinematography than it is the color correction. I can tell you I've worked on million-dollar commercials where we put the material up and gave it a very basic look and it looked incredible... because it was shot that way.
A given technique for specific material can't be predicted because so much of what a colorist does hinges on how good, bad, or ugly the material was shot, what camera was used to shoot it, how it was lit, what the circumstances were, and what kind of file format was provided.
So in other words: there are no simple answers. Power windows, qualifiers, masks, curves, primaries, secondaries... sometimes it's all of the above, sometimes it's just 2 or 3. It depends on many factors and there are no hard and fast rules.
One rule I would say is true is: with few exceptions, you can't shoot something inexpensively and quickly and expect to be able to equal the look of an intricately-prepared large-budget Hollywood feature or commercial. It might be possible to put it vaguely in the area of the major motion picture, but how close you can get is unpredictable.