 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> > A 32x32 pixel black and white version.
>
> Sounds fine.
Fine!
> I suppose this is so that the logo can
> later become the icon as well, right?
Partly, but also just to show how the logo looks in general when presented
in a small black and white resolution.
> I would like to suggest that if this
> is the case, that the icon be permitted
> to be different from the larger
> resolution versions of the actual logo.
> The icon can be just a small part of
> the larger concept, and the real logo
> can include a specific font for the
> "POV-Ray" text, for example.
I'm not very fond of this personally.
I think the small version should show the whole logo.
However, additional details could be added to the larger custom versions.
So what I want is to have the small version being the "real" logo while the
larger versions may have extra (not so important) details. What do you think
of this?
> > A 14400 pixel black and white version.
>
> How did you decide on that number?
120*120 is a nice size to begin with I think. The reason I chose that exact
number is that there are many different combinations of width and height
that when multiplied will give that number.
> Anyway, it sounds fine to me. This would
> allow the author to show the complete logo,
> with all of its features.
That's what I thought. I think both the little and the big bw version should
have all the details (they should be identical), but of course the details
may only be visible in the big format.
> > 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.
>
> Oh, OK. So what you're saying is that the
> official logo must be black and white, and
> that there will be no official colors for
> it? I guess that's OK by me, but maybe we
> could choose the best of the three
> presentations for deciding on the best
> official colors?
My intention of the 3 custom formats were not just to show how the logo
could be colored. People could also use them to present the logo in 2D, 3D,
or really fancy versions, and so on, to show how flexible it is.
But maybe we should add an optional format for logos that has "official"
colors. See my reply to Chris Huff.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > A 32x32 pixel black and white version.
>
> This sounds good.
Good!
> > A 14400 pixel black and white version
>
> Why 14400? I personally would prefer 19200,
> so you could have 160*120.
If you take 19200 a square logo will have a width and height of 138.5640...
Of course you would just round down to 138, but if we use 14400, there's
many different formats that gives "nice" numbers, because 14400 is a number
that can be divided with many numbers.
> > So, these 5 formats are my suggestion.
> > What do you think of it?
>
> I would suggest an optional 6th version,
> a "plain" color version. Some logos have
> color schemes which are part of the logo
Yes. I thought of that. Maybe it's best that way. I just hope not too many
people will make logos with "official" colors if the colors are not a very
important part of the logo. Take Tony's eye logo for example. I think it
looks nice in colors, but I don't think the specific colors of the logo are
very important. I would rather have that people could make their own
versions with different colors.
But maybe for those logos where the colors are *really* an important part of
the logo we should have this format. In that case I would say that we should
restrict the amount of colors. Say like, "no color gradients, only plain
colors, and not too many". A couple of colors would be normal while
something like 8 different colors would be an absolute maximum. What do you
think of this?
Anyway, if we add this optional large color format, I think we could have a
32x32 color format too. That way we can see how the official colors look in
a small resolution.
> And maybe a larger resolution "fancy" version,
> like a splash screen. Not necessarily the logo,
> but an image using it.
That's what I though one could use one of the custom formats for. Do you
really think more than 120x120 pixels are required just to show the logo in
a fancy way? I would like to hear what you think, maybe we really should add
a larger format too... But I must also think of bandwidth... Hmm...
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 <391f2357@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] iname com>
wrote:
> Yes. I thought of that. Maybe it's best that way. I just hope not too
> many people will make logos with "official" colors if the colors are
> not a very important part of the logo. Take Tony's eye logo for
> example. I think it looks nice in colors, but I don't think the
> specific colors of the logo are very important.
And then there is my "3 spheres" logo, which pretty much requires the
red/green/blue colors(the text colors are less important, but they were
also chosen for a reason).
> But maybe for those logos where the colors are *really* an important
> part of the logo we should have this format. In that case I would say
> that we should restrict the amount of colors. Say like, "no color
> gradients, only plain colors, and not too many". A couple of colors
> would be normal while something like 8 different colors would be an
> absolute maximum. What do you think of this?
I don't think this should be a requirement, although it might be a
recommendation in the rules. I can't really think of a good reason to do
this.
> Anyway, if we add this optional large color format, I think we could
> have a 32x32 color format too. That way we can see how the official
> colors look in a small resolution.
Good idea.
> That's what I though one could use one of the custom formats for. Do
> you really think more than 120x120 pixels are required just to show
> the logo in a fancy way? I would like to hear what you think, maybe
> we really should add a larger format too... But I must also think of
> bandwidth... Hmm...
Actually, what I was thinking of was allowing one of the 3 "fancy" or
"custom" versions to be a larger size. 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
32X32X2
32X32X16
<=14400pX2
<=14400pX256
<=320000pX16m
<=320000pX16m
<=320000pX16m
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:39213b02@news.povray.org...
>
> What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
>
It's the alternative one with the bad Captain Kirk...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote :
>
> "Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote :
> >
> > What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
> >
>
> It's the alternative one with the bad Captain Kirk...
>
So that would be -this- time line... right? You did mean the bad-acting
Kirk...?
So how come the only response I get to this is a Mellyism...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> And then there is my "3 spheres" logo, which
> pretty much requires the red/green/blue
> colors(the text colors are less important,
> but they were also chosen for a reason).
I agree. Your logo is one of those logos where the colors really are
important.
> > I would say that we should restrict the
> > amount of colors. Say like, "no color
> > gradients, only plain colors, and not too
> > many". A couple of colors would be normal
> > while something like 8 different colors
> > would be an absolute maximum. What do you
> > think of this?
>
> I don't think this should be a requirement,
> although it might be a recommendation in the
> rules. I can't really think of a good reason
> to do this.
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?
I think we need some way to tell that although colors are permitted in the
"official colors format", they still must be simple.
> > Do you really think more than 120x120
> > pixels are required just to show the logo
> > in a fancy way?
>
> 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...
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:
> 32X32X2
Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the 2
color versions.
> 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?
> <=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?
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?
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:
> What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
Earlier I suggested that all logos should be submitted before December 1
2000. After that date it would not be possible to change the logos at all,
so all feedback, suggestions, improvements, changes, and everything must be
done *before* this date.
It may sound of a long time, but consider how long time went by from when
the first logo competition started till the excellent eye logo were made.
Several months. That show is that often a lot of time is required for people
to make up good 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
