 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's why the larger the better. A 32 x 32
> logo can easily be turned into a 16, and a
> 320 into a 128 or 64.
You said just the same thing in another message. I replied to that other
message.
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:
> > > You think he was talking about what you wrote,
> > > I think he was talking about what I wrote
> >
> > No, I read all the posts in the thread, so I saw
> > TonyB's message where he made it clear that he
> > was referring to my message.
>
> It's a -JOKE-! I know you were not really
> confused, I was just pretending that we were all
> confused to make a point. (Man I hate explaining
> humor)
At first I thought it was a joke, but then TonyB didn't seem to get it (or
maybe he wasn't sure either) and Ken neither, and then you kept on yourself.
That *really* confused me... hehe... :-)
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:
>Ok, I will repost it in plain text then ( when I read 'redudant' I
>understood twice)
>Too bad, using bold and italic was very usefu
<sighing, but with an understanding smile> Sorry to both Fabien and
Ken for any misunderstanding. Yes, I did mean that the text was posted
twice in the same message - the way it appeared in my newsreader was the
plain text first, with what appears to be an attachment of HTML, or HTML
within the body of the message.
--
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" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> and then you kept on yourself.
>
Never let it be said that Bill DeWitt let a bad joke die a simple death
without beating it into the dirt two or three times.
--
I get paid to do -anything- while connected to the internet.
Please use my referral id to find out more
http://www.getpaid4.com/?billdewitt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39230271@news.povray.org...
> I don't agree. I think the voters should be able to compare the logos on
the
> same basis.
(All this mail is about personal preferences - I am not trying to impose my
point of view, just explaining it. Read all this as IMHO)
I agree. But I'd prefer _guidelines_ to rules. If an entrant do not want to
make his logo easily comparable, it would be his responsibility/decision.
Hence he can not protest were he penalised for doing so. And I think voters
are intelligent and educated enough to compare slightly different formats.
> 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.
Logo representation and presentation are parts of the same work. It is
author responsibility to demonstrate his logo's flexibility.
> There might be more possible fuss/protestations from the voters when they
> can't compare the logos properly... ;-)
So, they can express they protest when rating the offending logo(s).
> > 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.
My answer once again boils down to authors' responsibility.
I suppose we do not want to see 50+ slight variations on the same logo. The
author has to make decisions to get a reasonable ratio of logos/concept. If
he wants help/advice from his peers, he can - eg in these groups, like
TonyB - but the competition is not the place to get such advice.
I also think that a logo is much work. It is often better to spend his time
furthering a low number of logo/concept to take them as far as one can then
spending all his time brain-storming to get as many logo/concept as possible
but perfecting none of them. Once again, if one want advice on which
logo/concept to develop, one can ask, but I do not think this should be the
purpose of the competition.
I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would be reasonable.
It should be (imho) the author responsibility to choose the best between his
tries, as this is (imho) also part of the design process.
> There maybe should be some restrictions, but they should
> not be based on who has made the logos.
I think a restriction on the total number of logos, independent of a
number/author limit, can be a much worse creativity restriction (the more so
if the firsts submitters each post numerous variations).
I hope this clarifies my opinion and I'd be glad to further any explanation
if necessary.
Greetings
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > I think the voters should be able to compare
> > the logos on the same basis.
>
> (All this mail is about personal preferences -
> I am not trying to impose my point of view,
> just explaining it. Read all this as IMHO)
Same here.
> I agree. But I'd prefer _guidelines_ to rules.
> If an entrant do not want to make his logo
> easily comparable, it would be his
> responsibility/decision. Hence he can not
> protest were he penalised for doing so. And I
> think voters are intelligent and educated
> enough to compare slightly different formats.
I'm afraid many voters will judge upon what they see.
I'm not sure they will judge upon what they *don't* see.
If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really fancy ways only, and
he doesn't present his logo in the limited formats, then I think some voters
will judge upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a high score
because they like what they see, but that is not so good if the logo
actually wouldn't have looked nice in simple formats.
Therefore I think there should be some rules about in which formats the
logos should be submitted. To help the voters.
> > There might be more possible fuss/
> > protestations from the voters when they
> > can't compare the logos properly... ;-)
>
> So, they can express they protest when rating
> the offending logo(s).
I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm questioning the voters
ability to judge upon what they *don't* see. I'm not sure everybody will
think that far. Therefore I think we should make sure that the voters see
what they need to see.
> I suppose we do not want to see 50+ slight
> variations on the same logo.
I agree, but I wouldn't mind seeing 50+ completely different logos from the
same person.
> The author has to make decisions to get a
> reasonable ratio of logos/concept. If he
> wants help/advice from his peers, he can -
> eg in these groups, like TonyB - but the
> competition is not the place to get such
> advice.
I agree.
> I also think that a logo is much work.
> It is often better to spend his time
> furthering a low number of logo/concept to
> take them as far as one can then spending
> all his time brain-storming to get as many
> logo/concept as possible but perfecting
> none of them.
We can not say for sure that it isn't possible for one person to make a lot
of different logos that are all very good. Similar, there can also be a
person who makes one logo only, and it can still be a poor logo.
I think we should have some kind of limit, but the limit should be based on
quality, not on who has made the logo.
For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest if
there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will support
has no chance of winning anyway.
> I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would
> be reasonable.
People are different. Some people might be able to make more than 5 good
logos.
If we follow my suggestion the amount of logos will be limited in a natural
and fair way.
> It should be (imho) the author
> responsibility to choose the best between
> his tries, as this is (imho) also part of
> the design process.
Here's an example: Person A makes 7 really good logos. Person B makes one
poor logo.
Why should some of the good logos be excluded in favor of the poor one?
> > There maybe should be some restrictions,
> > but they should not be based on who has
> > made the logos.
>
> I think a restriction on the total number
> of logos, independent of a number/author
> limit, can be a much worse creativity
> restriction (the more so if the firsts
> submitters each post numerous variations).
I did certainly not mean that the order of the submissions was the way to
make the restriction!
> I hope this clarifies my opinion and I'd
> be glad to further any explanation if
> necessary.
What do you think of my suggestion?
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:
> 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...
> I just think something bigger than 120*120
> is needed, at least for one image.
:-)
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 <3924ec5b@news.povray.org>, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I also think that a logo is much work. It is often better to spend
> his time furthering a low number of logo/concept to take them as far
> as one can then spending all his time brain-storming to get as many
> logo/concept as possible but perfecting none of them. Once again, if
> one want advice on which logo/concept to develop, one can ask, but I
> do not think this should be the purpose of the competition.
>
> I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would be reasonable.
>
> It should be (imho) the author responsibility to choose the best
> between his tries, as this is (imho) also part of the design process.
I really think the author should decide how many he is capable of. And
his idea of his best logos might be unpopular(see my version of the eye
logo as an example. :-) ), or the majority of people could favor one
that he discarded.
However, dozens of minor variations of the same logo are another matter.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see where we disagree.
You suggest a large version of the small logo and only the symbol/logo for
people to get a better idea.
-> Two pictures ( a 16-32 and a 120 ) are needed.
I suggest two different pictures
-> One with only the symbol ( 16-32 format)
-> One with the logo and a few more details ( 120 format and above).
When I mean with details, I mean with the symbol, the letters and effects
>
> The large format of the simple version of the logo will not have more
> details, but it will be much sharper, and be more clear, and less blurred of
> anti-aliasing.
>
> I can understand that you think there should be more details in the larger
> versions, but that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.
Well,in that case the 120 format ( the one used for the [ Banner-Homepage] will
look pretty empty ( with only the logo in it).
>
> Again, it's to show the simple versions in large formats. You can use
> shading and reflection too, but that should be in the custom/fancy formats.
> That's what the custom/fancy formats were made for after all.
To sum up, you suggest only two types of format
120 )
That still leaves a gap between these two formats.
It might be better to propose a more detailed one at 128 and leave the 180 or
(much) more for the splash-screen.
>
> You are suggesting that we should have free formats *only*
No, I just meant that the logo-designer ( or whatever you call him her) should
decide whether to use effects or not.
I agree that there should be a kind of standards ( in sizes) just to compare
the logos, but in no way we should tell whether to use effects, gradients, plain
colors or not.
>
> With 3 different free formats the logo creator can really show how flexible
> the logo is. Some people have requested at least one large format, but I
> think 3 large formats would be too big in size, so I let the creator choose
> his favorite one or most detailed one for the large version.
>
> > 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.
>
> I said "180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels". That mean that it
> doesn't have to be square. 180x180, 150x216, 120x270, 90x360, and many more
> resolutions will all give max 32400 pixels.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I see where we disagree.
> You suggest a large version of the small logo
> and only the symbol/logo for people to get a
> better idea.
Yes, you could put it that way.
> I suggest two different pictures
> -> One with only the symbol ( 16-32 format)
I suggest that too. Only I think it should be showed in a larger version
too, so it is more sharp and less blurred.
> -> One with the logo and a few more details
> ( 120 format and above).
> When I mean with details, I mean with the
> symbol, the letters and effects
I suggest that too. I call it the custom format.
> > I can understand that you think there should
> > be more details in the larger versions, but
> > that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.
>
> Well,in that case the 120 format ( the one used
> for the [ Banner-Homepage] will look pretty empty
> ( with only the logo in it).
The logo creator can put anything in the custom formats. There's 3 of them,
so one can be simple with a little detail, one can be more interesting,
while the third can be really fancy. It's up to the logo creator.
> > Again, it's to show the simple versions in
> > large formats. You can use shading and
> > reflection too, but that should be in the
> > custom/fancy formats. That's what the
> > custom/fancy formats were made for after all.
>
> To sum up, you suggest only two types of format
> ( 16-32) and on a larger size (at 120 )
There's 3 of the fancy formats, and "custom format" is a better word
actually, because they don't *have* to be fancy.
Also, you forgot my color format suggestion.
> That still leaves a gap between these two formats.
Why? Anything can be put into the custom formats.
> It might be better to propose a more
> detailed one at 128 and leave the 180 or (much)
> more for the splash-screen.
There's 3 of the custom formats. The logo creator could choose to use one
for a "more detailed one" and another for a "splash-screen one".
> > You are suggesting that we should have free
> > formats *only*
>
> No, I just meant that the logo-designer ( or
> whatever you call him her) should decide
> whether to use effects or not.
That's what I call free format (or custom format).
> I agree that there should be a kind of standards
> ( in sizes) just to compare the logos, but in no
> way we should tell whether to use effects,
> gradients, plain colors or not.
When the logo is going to be used for real, there will be some cases where a
black and white version is needed, or a simple color version is needed.
Therefore we should require such formats in the contest too. However, we
should *also* have custom formats as I suggested.
Remember that everything I write here is just my opinion!
I hope you will reply again and tell what 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
