 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> What would also be great is it you have
> some way of varying the level of detail
> of the logo with larger sizes. You know,
> like if it's small you see the general
> outline, but if it's large you can add
> more decorations to it, since they
> would be visible.
Err, yeah, that what I've been trying to say all the time. :-)
From the initial message in this thread:
"You can always add detail to a simple logo. A simple logo could be
presented in 2D versions, 3D versions, you could make it glow, burn, rotate,
and all kind of stuff"
I think there should not be one way of presenting the logo that should be
the "right" one. Instead people can make many different versions. All those
versions could be detailed and have a high level of CRAFTSMANSHIP (hint,
Ken!). But all the detailed versions would origin from one simple logo. How
about that?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > A logo for POV-Ray demands a high level
> > of craftsmanship. Simplicity may sell
> > gas and oil but not POV-Ray.
>
> That's why we need a more general approach,
> that could declinate into either simple
> or complex things, following the needs.
> A global design could lead to logos,
> icons, splash screens, mousepads, t-shirts,
> CD's, soap, ...
I agree that we need a general approach, that could be made into into both
simple and complex things, following the needs. I think the best way to do
this would be to have people submit simple logos. A simple logo can always
be made more detailed, while it is not so easy the other way.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] iname com> wrote...
> Secondly, the reason the logo should be simple is not just that it must be
> suitable for small resolutions, but also that a simple logo is more
> flexible.
And generally more memorable and more recognizable, which are two very
important qualities of a logo.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This may complmicate things a bit, but why not propose two versions of the
logo :
One meant for the icons and the very low resolution. ( up to 32 x 32) with
only the symbol or whatever representing POV (no lettering or anything else)
The other one, in a higher resolution, with the 'symbol', the lettering, and a
few effects.
There are many examples of two sized-versions in the 'logo world' out there (
IE5, Netscape, Winzip, Sounf Forge, Xgedit95 ...)
I'll post these examples in p.b.i )
> TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
> news:390caa04@news.povray.org...
> > >Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!
> >
> > So do I. What would also be great is it you have some way of varying the
> > level of detail of the logo with larger sizes. You know, like if it's
> small
> > you see the general outline, but if it's large you can add more
> decorations
> > to it, since they would be visible.
>
> I agree. The logo should be able to have detail added in the larger
> resolutions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> PLC = POV-Ray Logo Competition.
>
> Which general qualities should the logo have?
OK, here is my opinion after following the various arguments.
Do not attempt to define what a logo is or is not. Let the person
submitting the logo to the competition define that for themselves.
Those of you wanting to submit simple logos do so.
Those of you wanting to submit complex logos do so.
It should not be up to the organizers to make decisions like this.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree, making the logo designer try to fit into submission guidelines such
as the ones last round will only serve to discourage people from submitting
logos.
--
Dan D.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> To prove that a logo by definition is very simple, I think we could all go
> hunting for logos on the internet and post links to them here.
>
ABC, NBC and CBS
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like your idea. Please post the examples. I would post them in .off-topic,
though, since they're not directly related to POV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> To prove that a logo by definition is very simple, I think we could all go
> hunting for logos on the internet and post links to them here.
>
For a -great- example of a simple logo presented in many intricate ways,
see the SCI-FI Channel logo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On my Siggraph '97 Demo Reel they have an explanation of how they did the
one with the glowing rings. Pretty cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
