In my humble opinion, the pov logo should be submitted as a short piece of
code, perhaps a macro, that allows the user to texture, scale and position
the object in the way that best suits them.

The competition should be both for simplicity and style, both in the image
and in the code.

See my example in pbi, not intended as a finished work. But as it is it
could be a reflective sphere and an (interior) checkered plane if you wanted
it to be...

One could make this as diverse, as intricate, or as black and white
simplistic as one wants, and at any resolution. The POVTeam could use it (or
any other submitted in this form) to generate their own trademarked images
for promotional or identification purposes.

Just an Idea...

Post a reply to this message

maybe even simpler that that, povray could add it as a watermarked stamp
(when requested to do so), stuffed away in a corner - similar to the tv
logos that seem to have crept there way onto virtually all channels....

in which case colour may not be appropiate..

Rick

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <kit### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message
news:390d8cba@news.povray.org...
> maybe even simpler that that, povray could add it as a watermarked stamp
> (when requested to do so), stuffed away in a corner - similar to the tv
> logos that seem to have crept there way onto virtually all channels....
>
> in which case colour may not be appropiate..
>

    In that case, there is that inverse color trick that someone sent me and
I hope I safely stored away...

    But to do that one could use any object or image.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> In my humble opinion, the pov logo should
> be submitted as a short piece of code,
> perhaps a macro, that allows the user to
> texture, scale and position the object in
> the way that best suits them.

Hmm, I disagree.

If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray it would be limiting.

As vaihtoehto put it:

"why logos(!) should have been created with povray? i recommend that you
march in any professional art studio and say that their artists have to use
a ray-tracing software for creating black and white sketches. i bet you will
be laughed out."

However, I think it would be possible to recreate any black and white logo
in POV-Ray (no guarantee). But it will be hard work, therefore the logo
artists don't have to mess with it themselves.

> The competition should be both for simplicity
> and style, both in the image and in the code.

I'd say simplicity and style in the image only. Some simple and stylistic
logos might require complicated coding (if made with POV-Ray at all).

I know that several of the logos in the old competition were not made with
POV-Ray, and that includes some of the most successful of them IIRC. So
generally I am against, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.

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] inamecom> wrote:
: "why logos(!) should have been created with povray?

  What does it tell about a rendering program the fact that even its logo
is not possible to make with it?

  (Rearrange the wording of that sentence if needed :) )

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 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. With a coded object as a logo, one could
conceivably send the information needed by carrier pigeon or over the gossip
fence or written on a cafe napkin. IOW, text only.

    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.

    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).
Isn't that sort of like the carpenter buying a brick house? How can you
believe him when he tells you that a wood house is the best choice? Or if a
Chiropractor went to a M.D. for his back pain...

    As for the "walking into a professional art studio" thing... posh. You
couldn't talk them into doing -any- work with POV, or if you could, they
might soon want to do -everything- with it like I often do... But even so,
again, who cares? We are not them. We don't have to do the same thing they
do to be professional. If we did we would be just another artist.

Post a reply to this message

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. :(

Basically, what I was going to try to prove is that Illustrator and POV are
very compatible, and that there shouldn't be any problem in making the logo
in Illustrator and then presenting it with POV in a nice 3D fashion, with
colored lights, and media, and all that jazz. See? I was trying to shut up
all those people who complained. 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. Those are my 2c, anyway. Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

At first, I thought that a POV logo has definitely to be made with POV.
But as a logo is either a 2D or a 3D image, it would be too limiting.

It would be an impossible task to show all the possibilities of POV in a single
LOGO.

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.
Personnaly I use several tools to build a complete object ( let alone a complete
scene)



Now that I think of it, may be that I should post this in the general NG






> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, the pov logo should
> > be submitted as a short piece of code,
> > perhaps a macro, that allows the user to
> > texture, scale and position the object in
> > the way that best suits them.
>
> Hmm, I disagree.
>
> If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray it would be limiting.
>
> As vaihtoehto put it:
>
> "why logos(!) should have been created with povray? i recommend that you
> march in any professional art studio and say that their artists have to use
> a ray-tracing software for creating black and white sketches. i bet you will
> be laughed out."
>
> However, I think it would be possible to recreate any black and white logo
> in POV-Ray (no guarantee). But it will be hard work, therefore the logo
> artists don't have to mess with it themselves.
>
> > The competition should be both for simplicity
> > and style, both in the image and in the code.
>
> I'd say simplicity and style in the image only. Some simple and stylistic
> logos might require complicated coding (if made with POV-Ray at all).
>
> I know that several of the logos in the old competition were not made with
> POV-Ray, and that includes some of the most successful of them IIRC. So
> generally I am against, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.
>
> 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

> 
> 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

>
> 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