 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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.
Sounds fine. I suppose this is so that the logo can later become the icon as
well, right? 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.
>A 14400 pixel black and white version.
How did you decide on that number? Anyway, it sounds fine to me. This would
allow the author to show the complete logo, with all of its features.
>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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <391ec750@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] iname com>
wrote:
> 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.
This sounds good.
> 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.
Why 14400? I personally would prefer 19200, so you could have 160*120.
> 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, the Apple logo is
an example. It has a black and white version, but color versions always
have the same "official" color scheme, a rainbow of colors from
top(green) to bottom(blue) with yellow, red, and purple in the middle.
And maybe a larger resolution "fancy" version, like a splash screen. Not
necessarily the logo, but an image using it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] inamecom>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
