"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message news:3921b255@news.povray.org...
{ 
{ "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
{ 
{ > 32X32X2
{ 
{ Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the 2
{ color versions.

Can't AA 2 color images and remain 2 colors.
 
{ > 32X32X16
{ 
{ I think max 16 colors in the simple color version would be fine :-)
{ AA should not count as colors though.

Can AA with this many colors but it won't look very antialiased.
 
{ > <=14400pX2
{ 
{ I agree.

Same concept.  The "jaggies" will abound but perhaps at this higher 
resolution it won't seem so bad.
 
{ > <=14400pX256
{ 
{ Hmm, why 256 colors?

256 color icons exist, so too do many splash screens and such.
 
{ > <=320000pX16m
{ > <=320000pX16m
{ > <=320000pX16m
{ 
{ On some screens there would not even be room for such large formats (for
{ example 565x565), especially not in a browser! Do you really need 3 giant
{ formats just to show the flexibility and fanciness-potential of a simple
{ logo?

Full screen sized logo does seem excessive, but one never knows the end uses.

{ I think Chris Huff's suggestion is more reasonable. He suggest that only ONE
{ of the "fancy" formats should be large, and not even that large.
{ 
{ What do others think?

I for one think I don't know Chris's idea there at the moment  :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> { "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
>

> { > 32X32X2
>

> { Is those 2 colors before or after AA?
> { I think AA should be allowed in the 2
> { color versions.
>
> Can't AA 2 color images and remain 2 colors.

2 colors in the actual logo is one thing.
2 colors in the image is another thing.

I think there should be 2 colors in the logo, but the image may contain
shades of gray (say 16 shades of gray). The shades of gray are for AA only,
the logo itself must be in 2 colors only.

> { > 32X32X16
>

> { I think max 16 colors in the simple color
> { version would be fine :-)
> { AA should not count as colors though.
>
> Can AA with this many colors but it won't
> look very antialiased.

Again, I think there may be 16 colors in the logo, but 256 or 16m or
something in the image (for the AA only).

> { > <=14400pX2
>

> { I agree.
>
> Same concept.  The "jaggies" will abound but
> perhaps at this higher resolution it won't seem
> so bad.

I think AA should be allowed.

> { > <=14400pX256
>

> { Hmm, why 256 colors?
>
> 256 color icons exist, so too do many splash
> screens and such.

16m icons exists too. Splash screens is just one of many possible uses.

> { > <=320000pX16m
> { > <=320000pX16m
> { > <=320000pX16m
>

> { On some screens there would not even be room
> { for such large formats (for example 565x565),
> { especially not in a browser! Do you really
> { need 3 giant formats just to show the
> { flexibility and fanciness-potential of a
> { simple logo?
>
> Full screen sized logo does seem excessive, but
> one never knows the end uses.

The submission formats are supposed to be *examples* of how the logos could
be used. We don't need to present every possible format, I think. Also, how
often would you use the logo in a rather small format, and how often would
you use a screen-size version? I think small formats are more common for
logos, so a majority of small formats in the submission formats would be
best, I 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

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3921b6c5@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
>
> Earlier I suggested that all logos should be submitted before December 1
> 2000.
>

    OK, that gives me some sort of schedule to look at. I don't have a lot
of time to do POV-Ray for fun. I am usually doing something else with my
computer time and I have several ideas I would like to actually submit this
time. I hope this is the earliest that we might be expected to submit a logo
and that some of the pre-voting that has been seen will not discourage any
submissions.

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
>
> > 32X32X2
>
> Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the
2
> color versions.

    Ummm, ok, before...

>
> > 32X32X16
>
> I think max 16 colors in the simple color version would be fine :-)
> AA should not count as colors though.
>
> > <=14400pX2
>
> I agree.
>
> > <=14400pX256
>
> Hmm, why 256 colors?

    .gif ... it's some sort of a standard greater than 16 and less than 16m.

>
> > <=320000pX16m
>
> Do you really need 3 giant
> formats just to show the flexibility and fanciness-potential of a simple
> logo?

    I don't think we -need- it, but it includes 640x480 and would allow folk
to make a sample scene which might include the logo and show how it would be
used in real life. I will submit something soon showing what I mean.







>
>

Post a reply to this message

MHO

Define admissible file formats (like : gif, png, zipped or not) and a
maximum total file size and let author/designers take care of what they want
to include or not. Write some guidelines (what currently are submission
rules). This way no author could complain about too constraining rules but
we will all take care of that when voting. Authors could choose for
themselves if they want to follow the guidelines ("security") or if they
prefer to "break the rules" to gain something else.



Povingly,


Philippe


PS : added benefit : easier rule redaction, interpretation and less possible
fuss/protestations. Perhaps a rule about a max number of logo(s) by the same
person.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > Earlier I suggested that all logos should
> > be submitted before December 1 2000.
>
>     OK, that gives me some sort of schedule
> to look at.

Oops, it seems like my original suggestion was actually November 1.
But it was only a suggestion anyway. I didn't get any feedback on this
suggestion.
What do you think would be a good deadline?

> I don't have a lot of time to do POV-Ray for
> fun. I am usually doing something else with
> my computer time and I have several ideas I
> would like to actually submit this time.

Great! I look forward to seeing them!

> I hope this is the earliest that we might be
> expected to submit a logo and that some of
> the pre-voting that has been seen will not
> discourage any submissions.

Me too.

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:
> > "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> >
> > > <=320000pX16m
> >
> > Do you really need 3 giant formats just to
> > show the flexibility and fanciness-potential
> > of a simple logo?
>
>     I don't think we -need- it, but it includes
> 640x480 and would allow folk to make a sample
> scene which might include the logo and show how
> it would be used in real life. I will submit
> something soon showing what I mean.

The submission formats are supposed to be *examples* of how the logos could
be used. We don't need to present every possible format, I think.

In "real life" I think the logos would be presented rather small 90% of the
time, an much less than 10% of the time you would use the logo in a
screen-size image. Therefore I think in the submission formats it is more
important to show the voters examples of how the logos could look in rather
small resolutions, than to show them how they look in giant formats. We can
have one big format, just to show the potential, but the focus should be on
the rather small resolutions, because that's how a logo is usually
presented.

Also, the big format I'm talking about doesn't have to be more than about
320x240 I think. You don't need to see an image in 640x480 just to tell if
it's a good image. If you see the image in 320x240 you can still tell what
the image is containing, if you like it or not, you can see a fair amount of
detail, and you can imagine how it would look in a larger resolution.

The logos submitted in the logo contest are not finished pieces of art for
the voters to take and use. They are basically meant only to help the voters
decide if they think it is a good logo (and *how* good it is). That is
possible without very large resolutions.

That's my opinion anyway. What do others 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

"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Define admissible file formats (like : gif,
> png, zipped or not) and a maximum total file
> size and let author/designers take care of
> what they want to include or not. Write some
> guidelines (what currently are submission
> rules). This way no author could complain
> about too constraining rules but we will all
> take care of that when voting. Authors could
> choose for themselves if they want to follow
> the guidelines ("security") or if they
> prefer to "break the rules" to gain
> something else.

I don't agree. I think the voters should be able to compare the logos on the
same basis. They also should be able to see how the logo looks in certain
different formats so they can see how flexible it is and how it looks when
presented very simple.

> PS : added benefit : easier rule redaction,
> interpretation and less possible
> fuss/protestations.

There might be more possible fuss/protestations from the voters when they
can't compare the logos properly... ;-)

> Perhaps a rule about a max number of
> logo(s) by the same person.

Why should we have a max number of different logos per person? (We *are*
talking about *different* logos, right?) What purpose would it serve other
than suppressing creativity? I think it is in our interest to get as many
logos as possible. There maybe should be some restrictions, but they should
not be based on who has made the logos.

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

In article <3922b186@news.povray.org>, "Philippe Debar" 
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Perhaps a rule about a max number of logo(s) by the same person.

Why? This sounds counter-productive...

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3921b24e@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> It's just because... If we allow gradients and the like, how exactly 
> can we prevent things like shading, reflection, and other complicated 
> effects, which belongs to the custom formats only?

Just allow gradients but not "3D effects" like shading, reflection, and 
so on. I don't see any real reason to disallow gradients in the color 
version...


> > 120*120 isn't that big on many monitors, and
> > many of the smaller details on the fancy
> > versions could be lost... an upper limit should
> > be set, of course, maybe 300*300.
> 
> So we have 2 custom formats of 120x120 max, and one custom at 300x300 
> max?
> I don't like it personally, but if other think we should have it...

I just think something bigger than 120*120 is needed, at least for one 
image.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message