 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> It would be an impossible task to show all the possibilities of POV in a
single
> LOGO.
That is not the task. I don't have the ability to show all the
possibilities of POV no matter what I do. The task is to make a nice thing
that can be use to represent POVRay. If that is not within my talents, I am
sure it is within the talents of some on this NG.
> In the 2D image case, it would be too limiting to use only POV.
> POV is a great renderer, but how many of us only use it to create a scene.
I do. Not that that means anything, because the task is not to make a
scene, but only a nice -thing- of some description that can be used to
represent POVRay. If that is not within the possibilities of POVray then
something is wrong. That would mean that POVRay is so simplistic that
perhaps I -could- show all of it's possibilities in a single Logo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> : why logos(!) should have been
> : created with povray?
I was quoting somebody else, but never mind.
> What does it tell about a rendering
> program the fact that even its logo
> is not possible to make with it?
That the rendering program is made for rendering 3D graphics with, but not
specifically 2D logos?
I personally create all my logos in POV-Ray, but that doesn't mean I think
everybody else should too.
I actually tried recreating vaihtoehto's logo in POV-Ray using mainly a
prism object but it was extremely difficult to get it just right. That is
probably much easier in a program made for the purpose of 2D graphics.
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:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray
> > it would be limiting.
>
> Well, the thing is that POV has a
> reputation of being a text driven,
> platform independent program. If the
> logo was an image, to insert it in a
> scene, you would need the image.
Some people might want to put the logo of POV-Ray in their image, but I
don't know how many. I wouldn't. I also don't see users of other renderers
doing so.
Besides, what wrong with an image_map? You might want to over-sample it a
lot, and still the required image could be pretty small. And AFAIK there's
some platform-independent image-formats.
> As an object, it can be easily
> #included in any scene or completely
> rewritten into any form of intricacy
> for any use. Still, if a flat b/w
> image is needed, it can be made.
The user would have to make sure the logo faces towards the camera exactly,
that it doesn't cast a shadow, you might want to avoid having it affected by
media and other things, and it goes on and on like this. Some things are
done better after the image is rendered (like adding signatures and logos).
Another option would be to use image_maps, which would eliminate at least
some of the problems. But maybe you meant putting the logo in the image as
an integrated part of the scene? That would be even more difficult, and to
be honest, I think it would be very few people who would do that.
> True, there are some things that can
> be done more easily in a paint program
> than in POV-Ray, but who cares? The
> images I have seen so far would be
> -extremely- easy to make in POV-Ray,
> but they weren't (in some cases).
Please make me an exact copy of logo 12! I had problems with it myself...
No, never mind. Just the fact that I couldn't make it myself shows that it
isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't think it is easy at all...
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:
> If that is not within the possibilities
> of POVray then something is wrong. That
> would mean that POVRay is so simplistic
> that perhaps I -could- show all of it's
> possibilities in a single Logo.
POV-Ray is made to create 3D graphics, not 2D graphics. I think logo 12 from
the old competition is simple and have some nice qualities, but it is rather
complicated to reproduce exact in POV-Ray. I think the main reason that
POV-Ray is not that suitable to create 2D graphics is that it is text-based,
and that it is not real-time.
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:
> Please make me an exact copy of logo 12! I had problems with it myself...
> No, never mind. Just the fact that I couldn't make it myself shows that it
> isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't think it is easy at all...
Took me less than 5 min. to recreate it exactly, in POV-Ray. See .images.
--
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:
> Rune wrote:
> > Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
> > I had problems with it myself...
> > No, never mind. Just the fact that I
> > couldn't make it myself shows that it
> > isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't
> > think it is easy at all...
>
> Took me less than 5 min. to recreate it
> exactly, in POV-Ray. See .images.
It seems like you used image_map, material_map, height_field or something
similar.
If that is correct, you did not recreate the logo in POV-Ray.
I think that Bill DeWitt's point was that the logo should be made entirely
inside POV-Ray without use of pre-made images. Otherwise it wouldn't make
sense (to me anyway).
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oups ! Sometimes I switch so fast between the NG that my computer does not
manage to keep up ( grin...)
Sorry about that.
>
> >
> > Now that I think of it, may be that I should post this in the general NG
>
> This is the .general NG... :)
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] iname com> wrote :
>
> Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
>
Making an exact copy is much harder than making one to begin with. I
made one close enough, at least the birdwing part. It was easy. The rest
might take me an hour or so but I won't do it because I have better things
to do, but I hope you can see that it is not all that hard.
The hardest part is thinking up a logo, after that, POV-Ray should be
able to do it. I agree that it doesn't -have- to be the tool of choice for a
good logo, but it -can- be so why not?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
>
> I made one close enough, at least the
> birdwing part. It was easy.
Sorry, but what you think is close enough, I think is not close at all.
Vaihtoehto's logo paid great attention to the curves, thickness, and
balance. That is what made the logo so stylistic. All those details are lost
in your version which is a rough approximation. I am sure that Vaihtoehto
would agree. Sorry, but as I see it, your image has only confirmed what I
said.
> The rest might take me an hour or so but I
> won't do it because I have better things
> to do, but I hope you can see that it is
> not all that hard.
Sorry.
> The hardest part is thinking up a logo,
> after that, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
POV-Ray is intended to do 3D graphics, not 2D graphics. The competition is
about making a good logo. When you decide if a logo is good you look at the
end result; the creating process doesn't matter.
> I agree that it doesn't -have- to be the
> tool of choice for a good logo, but it
> -can- be so why not?
POV-Ray *can* make some good logos, but there's also some good logos it
*can't* make. We shouldn't discard any good logos. That's why.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> I've actually been trying to convert my
> logo from AI to POV using EPS2POV, through
> Chris Huff. We've yet to be successful.
> It doesn't seem to like the EPS that
> Illustrator outputs. :(
That is a shame. I don't have Illustrator, but I would presume that it keeps
the data of the points of the graphics in some way, and that you should be
able to subtract the data in some way. Heh, easy to say for me who don't
have the program, and isn't a programmer...
> We shouldn't fight over which program
> creates the logo, so long as it fits
> POV-Ray, and represents it as it deserves
> to be represented.
Exactly. :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
