 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sounds OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" <ben### [at] panama c-comnet> wrote in message
news:39232c7a@news.povray.org...
> Sounds OK.
>
See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I didn't read any of the messages thoroughly. :) I only read Rune's. I was
aknowledging what he wrote last.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>A 32x32 pixel black and white version. Shades of gray is allowed, but only
>for anti-aliasing. For the reason of keeping the sizes small I think 16
>shades of gray is enough. I personally hardly can tell the difference
>between 256 shades of gray and 16 shades of gray, when the shades of gray
is
>used only for anti-aliasing.
i agree.
>A 14400 pixel black and white version. This version must contain 14400
>pixels at most, but the logo-designers can decide for themselves if they
>want a 60x240, or 80x180, or 120x120 resolution, or something completely
>else. This is so no shapes of logos are favored. Shades of gray is allowed
>in the same way as in the previous version.
i agree.
>3 custom versions. For these 3 versions the size limit is 14400 pixels as
in
>the previous version, but any amount of colors may be used. These versions
>are supposed to show how interesting the logo can be presented, and how
>flexible it is. It is encouraged that the 3 versions are made as different
>as possible, to show flexibility.
would those 3 custom versions be obligatory?
>So, these 5 formats are my suggestion. What do you think of it?
nice :)
-alt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think the best way to determine the sizes and colors of the logos is to know
where and how they are going to be used.
Is the logo going to be used to start POV as an application ?
-> a 16 x 16 and a 32 x 32 colored icon is best suited. This one should display
only the symbol. There is no space for lettering.
The 16 x 16 is needed in windows to start the applications.
The 32 x 32 is the average size for icons on desktop ( Linux and windows). I
think Mac and Amiga users have about the same needs.
Is the logo be displayed on the POV-Ray Homepage ?
-> any full-color logo with about 128 x 128 pixels should do. But in this case,
it should be up to the 'logo designer' to decide how large the original size
should be and if the logo should be square or not. Any large image can be
downsized to about 128 x 128 and still be easily recognizable.
Is the logo meant to be used for Web pages ( ie : comparing render stats or
pictures between POV and BMRT, or links to tutorials or the POV Homepage) ?
-> a size between 32 and 64 pixels should do. There again, a webmaster can
easily downsize a 64 x 64 logo to 32 x 32. That's why I would stick to a 64 x 64
logo ( upsizing a 32 logo to 64 would ruin it).
Is the logo to be inserted in one corner of pictures as a 'made with POV'
scheme?
-> a black and white version of the 32 x 32 icon with the symbol should be fine.
A 32 x 32 logo may look large on some pictures but it can be downsized. And
there again, it's up to the designer to decide if it should be square or not.
To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
to suit needs) [Application starter].
colors and lettering,...and whatever you can think of for banners and the
homepage is POVadmin agrees. This is one to be downsized to about 128 pixels
[Banner and Homepage]
Tell me what you think, but my opinion is that we should know beforehand how the
logo is going to be used to know where we are going.
> After having found out the general qualities of the logos we can proceed and
> begin to discuss the technical requirements. That is mainly about
> resolutions.
>
> I suggest that each logo should on the voting page be presented in the
> following 5 formats:
>
> A 32x32 pixel black and white version. Shades of gray is allowed, but only
> for anti-aliasing. For the reason of keeping the sizes small I think 16
> shades of gray is enough. I personally hardly can tell the difference
> between 256 shades of gray and 16 shades of gray, when the shades of gray is
> used only for anti-aliasing.
>
> A 14400 pixel black and white version. This version must contain 14400
> pixels at most, but the logo-designers can decide for themselves if they
> want a 60x240, or 80x180, or 120x120 resolution, or something completely
> else. This is so no shapes of logos are favored. Shades of gray is allowed
> in the same way as in the previous version.
>
> 3 custom versions. For these 3 versions the size limit is 14400 pixels as in
> the previous version, but any amount of colors may be used. These versions
> are supposed to show how interesting the logo can be presented, and how
> flexible it is. It is encouraged that the 3 versions are made as different
> as possible, to show flexibility.
>
> So, these 5 formats are my suggestion. What do you think of it?
>
> BTW, the POV-Ray Logo Contest Page is updated:
> http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/logo/logo.html
>
> 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
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (5 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:39237CE0.775CA590@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
>
> I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
>
I am pretty sure TonyB was talking about my comments of May 3rd where I
suggested that the logo should be an object and must be submitted with
pov-code. But I agree, his comments were a -stinging- rebuttal of your
Left-Handed arguments of February.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"vaihtoehto" wrote:
> would those 3 custom versions be obligatory?
I guess not. They are meant to show how/if the logo can be made
interesting/fancy and in how flexible it is (a flexible logo can be
presented in many different ways).
I think it should be encouraged to make those custom versions, but that it
should be up to the logo designer if he/she wants to make 0, 1, 2, or 3 of
the custom versions. I would strongly suggest that at least one were made
though.
I also think that we could help each other making logo versions. Like if
person A makes a nice logo, but doesn't know how to make it "fancy", person
B be could make a fancy version of it. Person A and B then could agree to
use person B's work for one of the custom formats in the submission.
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 think the best way to determine the sizes
> and colors of the logos is to know where and
> how they are going to be used.
I agree. I attempted to do that too.
However, I think that the formats submitted to the contest are previews or
examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
submitted ones after the contest. Therefore we don't need to worry about
scaling up or down the logos. We only should concentrate on presenting the
logos for the voters in a way so that they can imagine how the logos will
look in any resolution.
If we present the logos in a rather small resolution and a rather big
resolution, they can imagine by themselves how other resolutions will look.
If we also show a few "fancy" ways of presenting the logos, they can maybe
imagine for themselves how flexible the logo is, and how it could look when
presented in other fancy ways.
I think your suggestions are quite good, but I personally would prefer the
following:
1) 2 black and white formats (with anti-aliasing). One in 32x32. One in
120x120 or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats
should be identical, except for the size. They are required. [Application
starter], [Web-Page], ['Made with POV' logo].
(The reason I say [Application starter] and [Web-Page] is that some people
may prefer the black and white version instead of the color one.)
2) 2 color formats. Plain colors and gradients are allowed, but not
"effects" such as shading or reflection etc. . One in 32x32. One in 120x120
or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats should be
identical, except for the size. They are optional. [Application starter],
[Web-Page], [Banner and Homepage].
(The reason I say [Banner and Homepage] is that some people may prefer the
plain color version instead of the "fancy" ones.)
3) 3 custom (or "fancy") formats. All effects are allowed. 2 of them are in
180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels. One of them is in 360x360
or any resolution with max 129600 pixels. These three formats can be
completely different from each other. They are optional. [Web-Page], [Banner
and Homepage], [splash-screen], [wallpaper], [more...].
I think almost every possible use is covered in by these formats, when you
keep in mind that they are previews only.
What do 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:
> "Ken" wrote:
> > Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions
> > > are the best... 8-)
> >
> > I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
>
> I am pretty sure TonyB was talking about my
> comments of May 3rd where I suggested that
> the logo should be an object and must be
> submitted with pov-code. But I agree, his
> comments were a -stinging- rebuttal of your
> Left-Handed arguments of February.
I'm completely lost now.
Comments of May? Arguments of February? Stinging rebuttal?
I'm not sure what you're referring to; I thought we were discussing things
in *this* thread only.
I'm not sure what your point is either, and I would appreciate if you
explained it.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
