Originally Posted by tryingtimes
Well personally, I would class natural colours as 'filmlike'...
There is nothing inherently "natural" about the choice of colors/color scheme chosen during the production of a movie. They are all over the map in the film world. You get films with orangey, yellowy, golden, blue, green, brown (and lots of other) casts to the image, often purposely so. (Not to mention black and white!). There is plenty of artistic re-arranging of reality in films as you know. So I don't quite see the logic of associating "natural color" with film.
Film tones can be accurate; so can video. In fact I'd say that there tends to me more artistic fudging with color in movies than in images shot on video (e.g HD video etc).
For me, although "film-like" is something of a moving target since film can look grainy and low contrast to (virtually) grain-free, sharp and high contrast...the main thing that springs to mind when I think "film like" is
a sense of smoothness to the image, without blocky pixelated edges, edge enhancement, and the un-romantic "realistic but somehow cheap" vibe that video traditionally had. (Including the particular way it crushed the high and low end of the spectrum).
This holds true, as a general notion, even for HD Video vs film, where HD video carries over some of that unromantic, unvarnished "through a window" feel where you don't really feel an artist mitigating the image, vs film images that have a sort of artistic, mediated by the artist effect.
A non-technical analogy that springs to mind, my being into audio for a long time, is video reminds me of the experience of music played through solid stated equipment; film reminds me of music played through tube amplification. To me there is something "truthful" about the impression each makes. (And following my tastes: I tend to prefer tubes over solid state and film over video....
Although, given the increase in resolution and post processing available to digital video these days, even the "video look" is a moving target.