Ok, I will repost it in plain text then ( when I read 'redudant' I
understood twice)
Too bad, using bold and italic was very useful.



> 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.
>

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 16 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.

Post a reply to this message

"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.

"TonyB" wrote:
> Sounds OK.

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions
> are the best... 8-)

"TonyB" wrote:
> I didn't read any of the messages
> thoroughly. :) I only read Rune's. I was
> aknowledging what he wrote last.

So there you go. What confused me was that your wrote your message of 13:54
*after* TonyB had made clear what he meant.

> 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..

Yes, I too think that would be best. But at least he quickly corrected 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

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.





> 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

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39247038@news.povray.org...
>
> "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)

Post a reply to this message

> 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

Yes, it wouldn't cover so many possible uses.

> > 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.

When they are identical (and *only* when they are identical) people can
imagine for themselves how the resolutions in between will look.

> 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.

The black and white format, which is the one we're talking about now, should
be very simple. Therefore it is recognizable even in 32x32.

> 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.

So you mean that simple = dull? I don't think so. The reason I think the
simple b&w version should be presented in a large resolution too, is that I
think the voters should be able to see what the simple b&w version looks
like when scaled up.

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.

> > 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.

Many people thinks that simplicity is nice. I personally thinks that a nice
and simple logo will remain beautiful no matter how large it is made. The
simple version should be clearly visible in 32x32, but the voter should also
be able to see the simple version in a larger resolution.

> These two formats do not serve the same
> purpose and not are meant for the same
> things.

You are presuming that people always wants more details in larger
resolutions. I say that people may also want to see the simple version in a
large resolution. The large format of the simple logo will be much sharper,
etc.

> Besides, I think it's too restrictive not
> to allow shadings and reflections in a
> 120 x 120 picture.

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.

> 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.

Logos should look nice *both* when they are limited by formats *and* when
they are not limited. Therefore I have suggested *both* limited formats
*and* free/custom/fancy formats.

You are suggesting that we should have free formats *only*, but then we
couldn't see if the logos looked nice in limited formats. When the logo is
going to be used for real, it will often be presented in limited formats.
Therefore we should have limited formats here too *as* *well* as the free
formats.

> 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.

See my reply above.

> Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not
> think of. But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in
> 360 x 360.

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.

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

> > 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.
>
> That's why the large the better ( a 32 x 32 can
> easily be turned into a 16) and a 320 into a 128.

Say what, the logo creator make a very big image and saves it on his disc.
He then submits a smaller version of it for the contest. Now we can
concentrate on the *preview* formats, because we can always get the bigger
version from the logo creator. Problem solved.

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:

>     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)

Nay, nay I say ! That's no nose like you think it be. That thar is a
blue cucumber.

-- 
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

> 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-internetfr> 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