> Therefore, we should have only two formats :
> - A small one, with only the symbol (or
>   whatever representing POV) - 32 and 16
> - A large one with full details and colors -
>   120 pixels and more
>
> But that would be too restrictive

Yes, it wouldn't cover so many possible uses.

> > 1)  2 black and white formats (with anti-
> > aliasing). One in 32x32. One in 120x120 or
> > any other resolution with max 14400 pixels.
> > These two formats should be identical,
> > except for the size. They are required.
> > [Application starter], [Web-Page], ['Made
> > with POV' logo].
>
> The problem is that there is a huge gap
> between a 120 x 120 logo and a 32 x 32 one.

When they are identical (and *only* when they are identical) people can
imagine for themselves how the resolutions in between will look.

> I don't think that these two should be
> identical. The 120 pixel logo ( if too
> detailed or cluttered ) would be
> unrecognizable when downsized to 32 or even
> to 16.

The black and white format, which is the one we're talking about now, should
be very simple. Therefore it is recognizable even in 32x32.

> Besides, if you decide to make the 120 logo
> simple enough to be easily downsized to 16
> pixel, it is very likely to dull at 120.

So you mean that simple = dull? I don't think so. The reason I think the
simple b&w version should be presented in a large resolution too, is that I
think the voters should be able to see what the simple b&w version looks
like when scaled up.

The large format of the simple version of the logo will not have more
details, but it will be much sharper, and be more clear, and less blurred of
anti-aliasing.

I can understand that you think there should be more details in the larger
versions, but that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.

> > 2)  2 color formats. Plain colors and
> > gradients are allowed, but not "effects"
> > such as shading or reflection etc. . One
> > in 32x32. One in 120x120 or any other
> > resolution with max 14400 pixels. These
> > two formats should be identical, except
> > for the size. They are optional.
> > [Application starter], [Web-Page],
> > [Banner and Homepage].
>
> Same as above.
> The difference between the format is too
> large.
> I think it is a mistake to want a 120 x 120
> and a 32 x 32 ( or 16) logo to look identical.

Many people thinks that simplicity is nice. I personally thinks that a nice
and simple logo will remain beautiful no matter how large it is made. The
simple version should be clearly visible in 32x32, but the voter should also
be able to see the simple version in a larger resolution.

> These two formats do not serve the same
> purpose and not are meant for the same
> things.

You are presuming that people always wants more details in larger
resolutions. I say that people may also want to see the simple version in a
large resolution. The large format of the simple logo will be much sharper,
etc.

> Besides, I think it's too restrictive not
> to allow shadings and reflections in a
> 120 x 120 picture.

Again, it's to show the simple versions in large formats. You can use
shading and reflection too, but that should be in the custom/fancy formats.
That's what the custom/fancy formats were made for after all.

> We should also limit ourselves to formats.
> We can discuss about how large the pictures
> should be, but not about what is inside them.
> It will hamper creation.

Logos should look nice *both* when they are limited by formats *and* when
they are not limited. Therefore I have suggested *both* limited formats
*and* free/custom/fancy formats.

You are suggesting that we should have free formats *only*, but then we
couldn't see if the logos looked nice in limited formats. When the logo is
going to be used for real, it will often be presented in limited formats.
Therefore we should have limited formats here too *as* *well* as the free
formats.

> It's up to the designer to decide what (s)he
> is going to do inside the picture. If the
> logo is not easily readable because there
> are too many effects for the format, then he
> will remove them.

See my reply above.

> Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not
> think of. But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in
> 360 x 360.

With 3 different free formats the logo creator can really show how flexible
the logo is. Some people have requested at least one large format, but I
think 3 large formats would be too big in size, so I let the creator choose
his favorite one or most detailed one for the large version.

> And why in square format. Square format is
> required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
> Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.

I said "180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels". That mean that it
doesn't have to be square. 180x180, 150x216, 120x270, 90x360, and many more
resolutions will all give max 32400 pixels.

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