"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> May I take note that you almost agree with the description I made?
>

    Sure, and the "Almost" part is the part where you say "2D". In the past,
perhaps a flat logo was all they could do, but I think that we should be
able to think in 3D now. I can understand if "experts" aren't 3D ready, but
I am.

    One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
>    One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
>almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?

Rolls-Royce hood ornament?

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom...
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >    One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
> >almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?
>
> Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
>

http://www.ktsmotorsportsgarage.com/ault98/pages/rolls-spirit.html

Absolutely. Although they call it a "mascot" it is far more recognized than
the 'RR' logo they also use.

Post a reply to this message

>Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
>word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
>good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors only,
>and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
>logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.

i agree.
saying that "i'm ready for 3d!!!1!" generates only messy p0V-rAy!!1!
text-shit-logos..
as i see it, the *basic* logo has to be simple black and white outline
without text.
(outline can be perspective, though, but truecolor shading etc. just makes
it unusable)

and "text" doesn't mean letter elements, it means a few lines of words, like
"pov-ray, persistence of vision raytracer".
that kind of things are far away from true logo.

then there could be colored/4d/whatever versions of that basic logo outline.

-alt

Post a reply to this message

"ddombrow" wrote:
> I do agree that the final logo should
> follow those criteria,

Glad we agree about that.

> but why not leave the initial
> submissions open to anything anyone
> wants to submit as a logo.

I think the reason we disagree is that we have a different idea of what
"submission" means. You think submissions are for any logos, including logos
that needs improvement. I think they are for finished logos only. I say
there are no such thing as initial submissions, only final submissions.

> Then we can say, this doesn't make for a
> good logo, then we can ask for what it
> would look like with less detail.

I agree that we should do this, but I think it should be *before* the
submissions.

When the logos have been submitted, it is too late to change them, so the
improvements you are talking about should be before the submissions.

I think people can post their logos in povray.binaries.images. There they
can get feedback, and they can improve it. When the logo doesn't need to be
improved anymore, they can be submitted.

> As it is stated in the article, you can't
> exactly always define what makes logo
> good, but when you see it, you just know
> it. So I say make submissions open, it
> keeps ideas floating around better and may
> spark someone else who comes up with a
> good design.

I say, keep the newsgroups open. The logos can be discussed there. I think
ideas and sparks will thrive anyway.

I hope you will reply to this and tell me what you 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

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Ron Parker" wrote:
> > > One of the best logos, for the most
> > > classy product in the world, for
> > > almost a hundred years, has been 3D.
> > > Can you guess what I am thinking of?
> >
> > Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
>
> http://www.ktsmotorsportsgarage.com/ault98/pages/rolls-spirit.html
>
> Absolutely. Although they call it a
> "mascot" it is far more recognized than
> the 'RR' logo they also use.

They call it a mascot. I do too.

You say it is a logo. Your only argument is that it is more recognized.

Why does the fact that it is more recognized make it a logo?

A mascot may be more recognized than a logo, but that doesn't mean that the
mascot *is* a logo.

I have yet to see a big, well-known company who has a logo that is not
presentable and easily recognizable in black and white (with no shades of
gray).

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

< lurk mode=off>

Hi everybody!

Just for the record : I agree with Rune, Peter J. Holzer and others. I think
a good logo should be simple. A simple shape, easily recognised,
good-looking in low-res and low colour.


Now, just because POV could have an official logo does not mean you could
not use your own favorite  - or so I hope :-)


Povingly


Philippe

</lurk>

Post a reply to this message

(read in the London tube)

"Experts are not more right than other people,
They are wrong for more complicated reasons."

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:390f10d2@news.povray.org...
> Would you submit a hand drawn image for the IRTC ? No.
> But what if was a really really nice hand drawn image?
> No, it wouldn't be accepted because the IRTC is for rendered images only.
>
> Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
> word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
> good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors
only,
> and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
> logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.


I think that using this conversation to potentially reject entries is a very
bad idea. This thread is useful as a guideline for future entrants and
future voters. But it should not become rules. The "simpleness" rule for
logos  is like compositional rules for pictures : guidelines for those who
need/want them. such rules are made to be broken. Why reject a priori a
great logo just because it "does not follow the rules"? Sure, generally
speaking I think that simpleness is a logo must-be. "generally speaking".
Everybody submitting a logo now know that I generally find simple logos more
attractive, and hence know somewhat how I will vote. They will not be able
to say "I didn't know". But it stops right there. If a complex logo is
better than the other ones, it will get my vote.


Povingly


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

okay, point taken. I guess I was thinking of a slightly different
submissions process.

--
Dan D.

"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/

Post a reply to this message