Stylized 2D: everything that looks 2d, like 90’s animation, and modern vector animation, or even 3d to 2d techniques.
Stylized 3D: like Moana and Pixar/Disney style
Physical: everything that looks Realistic, like GTA 6, and photorealistic characters, lights, materials etc
There aren’t two styles, and even if there were, none of your descriptors mean anything. This is a false dichotomy, and any data gained from this will be useless as a result. Your question also lacks context, which is essential for any discussion about artistic preferences.
If you want to learn how to ask this question in a way that creates usable data, the Pew Research Center has an excellent guide:
if it was a simple question it would have made sense - this raises more questions than it answers - by physical do you mean reality-based realism vs cartoon/anime-style or something like hard surface modelling, or PBR texture painting vs hand-painted surfaces, or physical (3D model) animation vs drawn… what… no man, go do your homework and get back to us
But… these are not styles. They are ends of a spectrum, maybe?
Also you can have different aspects of the same work in different places of said spectrum.
For example: heavily stylized proportions, but PBR materials and realistic animation - Tintin adaptation from 2011.
Or: a live-action movie (realistic by default) with strong style choices - Barbie
Stylized 2D: everything that looks 2d, like 90’s animation, and modern vector animation, or even 3d to 2d techniques.
Stylized 3D: like Moana and Pixar/Disney style
Physical: everything that looks Realistic, like GTA 6, and photorealistic characters, lights, materials etc
I think it’s fine it’s just that it’s a bit risky to draw conclusions on that since it’s a bit of a simplification.
I guess it’s just that some people in the past made similar pools on other subjects to eventually make 2h length videos and used those biased pools as an argument to make their point.
Anyway, personally I like stylized stuff, more on the shape side because I also enjoy lighting really much therefore I try to have stylized shapes and more realistic materials and lights most of the time.
But doing more realistic stuff is fun from time to time.
Also I agree with @stray that realistic is also misleading, sometimes that’s really what you’re after. But in most entertainment industries when it comes to realism it’s more about being believable and providing an improved version of reality, since most if the time reality is a bit boring and entertainment is about providing a richer experience…
i just love blender and artists and i would really like to connect and be friends with other artists, because i think we might be similar as persons. my friends from school werent that artistic.
i used to dont like realistic stuff till recently that i played the red dead 2 . and its very cool game. so now i understand why they want to make them look like that. but i still prefer stylized cute stuff, toon and anime
Cool ! I think BA is a great place to connect even if that might take a bit of time, but eventually you’ll see people that are more active, and also people that are in a similar vibes than yours !
I agree that is amazing to have access to such a big artistic community even though we’re all from different location, cultures, age so things aren’t always as straightforward as they could be !
Well, it’s a long story but quite some time ago a well known youtuber started a quest to improve blender’s UI, which eventually led to some actual improvements we benefits today.
But they also used pools as arguments but it was put in a bad way. Like they basically asked if people wanted blender to be simpler to use.
Which we could probably all agree on that, but in the meantime it’s hard to make it simpler without keeping all the advanced functionalities.
This also asked the question if blender should favor a vast majority of beginners medium level users, or a lesser crowd of advanced users.
Since the goal of blender is to be an high end 3D software, at some point it’s better to listen to advanced users while making some simplifications for beginners. But in this case pools weren’t relevant first because they were put in a biased way, and in this case the majority might not be right and advanced users might have a better overall vision of the software.
TBH this creates quite a drama within the community to a point they made public apologies at the blender conference stating that pools were… meh…
I’m not sure if long time blender users still think about that episode when they see pools, but personally I still have a few PTSD when I see one. But in your case that’s fine, if it’s just to start a conversation why not …
On the flipside blender release a survey each year to try to see where the community is at, it’s not perfect but that can be informative. Still doing that is a job in itself, probably none of us is a professional in that field…