 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PLC = POV-Ray Logo Competition.
Which general qualities should the logo have?
Should it be simple or detailed?
This seems to be the subject everyone wants to discuss, so let's discuss it
now although it was scheduled to be discussed at a later time.
In an attempt at starting this discussion I have tried to answer a question
raised by Ken:
Ken wrote:
> In an electronic computer environment like
> POV-Ray and the WWW why would you bother
> with a low resolution version of a logo ?
> I personally do not see the benefit. I
> mean if we were creating a logo for
> illustrator or some other print based
> program I could see a reason for it but
> not in a computer graphics related industry.
Firstly, there are many cases where you would want a low resolution of the
logo, for example for in icon, which is just 32*32 pixels, or on those tiny
banners you put on websites (POV-Ray 3 NOW!).
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. 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, and still it would be the same logo. It is not as
easy to remove details from a detailed logo, because the details would be a
part of the logo, and thus unremovable. You would simply not know how many
details you could remove before it was not the same logo anymore.
As far as I have understood TonyB, Fabien Mosen, ddombrow, and others agree
with this, or at least something close, while Ken and some others don't
agree. Is that correct? What is the opinions of others? Please keep on
discussing!
Again I must point out that those who don't join the discussion cannot at a
later stage complain about the conclusions reached. So if you have any
opinion please reply. Reply even if
your opinion has already been stated by somebody else. That way we might be
able to see a general tendency.
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 wrote:
> Firstly, there are many cases where you would want a low resolution of the
> logo, for example for in icon, which is just 32*32 pixels, or on those tiny
> banners you put on websites (POV-Ray 3 NOW!).
Don't confuse a logo competition with an icon competition. They are not
the same thing and have two totally different intended purposes.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Don't confuse a logo competition with an
> icon competition. They are not the same
> thing and have two totally different
> intended purposes.
As I see it, most good logos can be made into icons because they are so
simple.
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. If a logo is
available in different version it is the most simple version that counts.
Then we could see how simple a logo generally is. The more known company,
the better, because they know what they're doing. I think we will find out
that a logo generally is very simple and uses one or a few colors only.
Examples that I know without link references are the logos of Apple,
Windows, McDonald's, Intel, Shell, Nike, MTV, Amnesty International, and
hundreds more I can't remember right now. They all use one or a few colors
only, and they're all easily recognizable in a very low resolution, and in
black and white. Please remind me of / show me some that are more detailed,
because I can't think of any.
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 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.
Finnish Railroads http://www.vr.fi
Voyetra/Turtle Beach http://www.voyetra.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Kivisalo www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune 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.
Since we are talking about 3D programs let's explore the logos of
products that are made for 3D work.
Calagary truespace
http://www.caligari.com/
Animation master
http://www.hash.com/products/am.asp
Newtech makers of lightwave
http://www.newtek.com/
Genisis 3D
http://www.silicond.demon.co.uk/
Soft Image
http://www.softimage.com/
And one of my all time favorites -
http://www.armanisoft.ch/
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
don't forget metacreations: http://www.metacreations.com
caligari's and newtek's are pretty simple when you break them down.
if you look under softimage XSI from the homepage, you'll see a very fine
logo for that product.
on the pages for genesis 3d and armanisoft, you'll find what I would call
banners, not logos.
The biggest distinction to make is that it is not that a logo cannot be
complex, employing chromed effects and 3d effects and such, but that the
basic design must have merit in and of itself without the employment of
those effects. Perhaps the case I am trying to make is that a good logo can
be displayed simply, not that it necessarily will be.
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:390C7792.A814F3B3@pacbell.net...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:46:58 -0700, Ken wrote:
>Rune wrote:
>
>> Firstly, there are many cases where you would want a low resolution of the
>> logo, for example for in icon, which is just 32*32 pixels, or on those tiny
>> banners you put on websites (POV-Ray 3 NOW!).
>
>Don't confuse a logo competition with an icon competition. They are not
>the same thing and have two totally different intended purposes.
I think that a logo for a program should be usable as an icon for this
program. It should also be usable on glossy brochures, web pages,
printed documentation, letterheads on faxes, and (in the special case
of povray as an image-producing software) as a "watermark" on generated
images.
To be suitable for all these purposes, it needs to obey several
constraints:
1) It needs to be at least recognizable at VERY low resolutions to be
used as an icon.
The low resolution version of the logo may be only part of the full
logo (for example, it may be missing the text "pov-ray" for all the
O-with-V logo variations).
2) It needs to be recognizable in black and white - documentation will
often be printed on a black-and-white printer, and an unrecognizable
black blob on the title page won't look good. The resolution
requirements for the bw version are probably a little less stringent,
but you can't completely ignore them (think of faxes or watermarks on
pictures).
3) It needs to look good at high resolution and in color.
From this follow a number of "shoulds":
1) The logo should consist of rather large, smooth features, which can
be scaled to almost any resolution.
2) If colors are used, they should really be part of the logo, but not
be necessary to recognize it.
Logo 6 is a good example: There is a reason for the cube to be red,
green and blue (reference to the RGB color space), and the logo would
always have the top green and the left side blue when represented in
color. Even when wou see only a very tiny red/green/blue cube where
the letters POV on top aren't recognizable, you would immediately
think "POV-Ray". If the cube is cyan/magenta/yellow, you wouldn't.
OTOH, the logo is still recognizable in bw.
In contrast, the golden color of logo 2 doesn't seem to me part of
the logo. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be silver or
neon-green.
Actually, I think these two points hold even in the absence of technical
constraints. People recognize simple shapes easier than complex shapes,
and they also tend to recognize the same shape with no colors, or the
same colors with a slightly different shape.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Rune 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.
>
> Since we are talking about 3D programs
> let's explore the logos of products that
> are made for 3D work.
>
> Calagary truespace
> http://www.caligari.com/
On that page I could see 3 different versions of their logo. If you look at
the things those three versions have in common only, the resulting logo
becomes quite simple.
> Animation master
> http://www.hash.com/products/am.asp
I couldn't find their logo on that page. Please specify what you see as
their logo. I don't remember a logo for A:M even though I have the program.
> Newtech makers of lightwave
> http://www.newtek.com/
Here's a more simple version:
http://www.newtek.com/images/nt_lowfi_logo.jpg
> Genisis 3D
> http://www.silicond.demon.co.uk/
I couldn't find their logo on that page. How can you know that the text
saying "Genesis 3D" isn't just a fancy header?
> Soft Image
> http://www.softimage.com/
What do you mean the logo is? Please specify.
> And one of my all time favorites -
> http://www.armanisoft.ch/
In my opinion they don't know how a good logo should be, but I know that
that is not a real argument. I would like to see more logos of big
well-known companies.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found a very good page about making logos here:
http://www.turtlesweb.com/articles/logo.html
Basically, it states exactly what I have been trying to say.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
