"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> >
> > > <=320000pX16m
> >
> > Do you really need 3 giant formats just to
> > show the flexibility and fanciness-potential
> > of a simple logo?
>
>     I don't think we -need- it, but it includes
> 640x480 and would allow folk to make a sample
> scene which might include the logo and show how
> it would be used in real life. I will submit
> something soon showing what I mean.

The submission formats are supposed to be *examples* of how the logos could
be used. We don't need to present every possible format, I think.

In "real life" I think the logos would be presented rather small 90% of the
time, an much less than 10% of the time you would use the logo in a
screen-size image. Therefore I think in the submission formats it is more
important to show the voters examples of how the logos could look in rather
small resolutions, than to show them how they look in giant formats. We can
have one big format, just to show the potential, but the focus should be on
the rather small resolutions, because that's how a logo is usually
presented.

Also, the big format I'm talking about doesn't have to be more than about
320x240 I think. You don't need to see an image in 640x480 just to tell if
it's a good image. If you see the image in 320x240 you can still tell what
the image is containing, if you like it or not, you can see a fair amount of
detail, and you can imagine how it would look in a larger resolution.

The logos submitted in the logo contest are not finished pieces of art for
the voters to take and use. They are basically meant only to help the voters
decide if they think it is a good logo (and *how* good it is). That is
possible without very large resolutions.

That's my opinion anyway. What do others think?

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message