 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> Sounds OK.
What I wrote sounds OK?
OK, thanks! :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
>
> I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
I'm not sure what suggestions of yours you are referring to.
Anyway, it doesn't matter so much what I think. I try to look at what the
majority thinks and make my decisions accordingly. I can only judge from the
responses I get, though. That's why I always encourage people to reply if
they have any opinion 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> I don't see why the logos should be compared
> at all. Each should be evaluated for its
> individual merits and for no other reason.
> I hate conformity !
A good logo has certain qualities, and it is in our interest to make those
qualities (or lack thereof) visible to the voter. We should in the
submission formats present the logos in some of the same ways as we expect
them to be presented when they're going to be used for real.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<ffj### [at] club-internet fr> wrote:
>To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
Hi, Fabien. Could you please post in plain text only? Some visitors,
such as myself, use newsreaders that do not decode HTML so it's sort of
redundant on our space-limited server to post both formats.
Thank you for your participation.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
> submitted ones after the contest.
Assuming the logo was created with POV-Ray and not in some graphics
program like photoshop. In which case the size of the submitted logo
becomes very important. Most images lose quality when being resized
in a graphic program.
--
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:
>
> > examples only. We can always render the
> > logo in other resolutions than the
> > submitted ones after the contest.
>
> Assuming the logo was created with POV-Ray
> and not in some graphics program like
> photoshop. In which case the size of the
> submitted logo becomes very important.
> Most images lose quality when being resized
> in a graphic program.
I'm pretty sure that at least the black and white version of a logo is
always recreational, if not in POV-Ray, then at least in a vector based 2D
graphics program. I think the color version of a logo will be too. The
"fancy" versions will probably not be easy to recreate in other programs,
but then, the "fancy" version are only examples. They are not meant to be
"official" like the black and white version and the color version is.
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 :
>
> 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.
I was referring to the phenomena that you referred to in your reply to
TonyB's post.
> What I wrote sounds OK?
You think he was talking about what you wrote, I think he was talking
about what I wrote, Ken thinks whatever 'oh's and 'one's such a construct
thinks in the silicone lattice of his mindchips... anyway, TonyB should
quote a little bit of the post he is responding to so these sort of
conversations don't happen again..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oups, sorry for the trouble.
What you meant is that the post was posted twice and that only one was
readable by your newsreader ?
> <ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>
> >To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
>
> Hi, Fabien. Could you please post in plain text only? Some visitors,
> such as myself, use newsreaders that do not decode HTML so it's sort of
> redundant on our space-limited server to post both formats.
>
> Thank you for your participation.
>
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Oups, sorry for the trouble.
>
> What you meant is that the post was posted twice and that only one was
> readable by your newsreader ?
No, he meant that you have your news program is set up to post in
HTML format rather than plain text. This was obvious by the bold
fonts used in your message. Not all news readers are capable of
decoding HTML posts automatically and it makes them difficult to
read. HTML posts also comsume more space on the news server and
space on this news server is not unlimited like it is on USENET
or other corporate sponsored news servers.
--
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 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.
>
Therefore, we should have only two formats :
- A small one, with only the symbol (or whatever representing POV) - 32 and 16
- A large one with full details and colors - 120 pixels and more
But that would be too restrictive
>
> 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 problem is that there is a huge gap between a 120 x 120 logo and a 32 x 32
one.
I don't think that these two should be identical.
The 120 pixel logo ( if too detailed or cluttered ) would be unrecognizable
when downsized to 32 or even to 16.
Besides, if you decide to make the 120 logo simple enough to be easily downsized
to 16 pixel, it is very likely to dull at 120.
>
> (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].
>
Same as above.
The difference between the format is too large.
I think it is a mistake to want a 120 x 120 and a 32 x 32 ( or 16) logo to look
identical.
These two formats do not serve the same purpose and not are meant for the same
things.
Besides, I think it's too restrictive not to allow shadings and reflections in a
120 x 120 picture.
We should also limit ourselves to formats. We can discuss about how large the
pictures should be, but not about what is inside them. It will hamper creation.
It's up to the designer to decide what (s)he is going to do inside the picture.
If the logo is not easily readable because there are too many effects for the
format, then he will remove them.
>
> (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...].
>
Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not think of.
But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in 360 x 360. And why in square format.
Square format is required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
