 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Hertel" wrote:
> > This format could be used for the POV-Ray
> > icon, for webpages, for water-marks in
> > people's images, and many other things.
>
> > What do you think? I hope as many as
> > possible will reply.
>
> Fair, good rules. POV-Ray really needs a logo.
Thanks! I agree.
> I'd prefer a black and white image as a
> watermark, but I find it very hard to make a
> good one myself.
A black and white watermark, that was the idea.
There's some promising ones out there, it'll be exiting to see which one
becomes official, if any of them 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>What do you think? I hope as many as possible will reply.
just fine. as usual :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: New submission formats suggestion
Date: 24 May 2000 10:24:36
Message: <392be624@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What would you think of adding a text file, describing the logo, the
concept, the hows... ?
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Approved.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> What would you think of adding a text file,
> describing the logo, the concept, the hows... ?
It might be a good idea if the logo designers could explain the concepts of
their logos. On the other hand, logos should make sense without an
explanation. When you normally see a logo, you don't get any explanation, so
a explanation shouldn't be nessesary.
So I don't know. What do others think?
And by the way, what do you think of the image formats themselves?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: New submission formats suggestion
Date: 31 May 2000 08:55:03
Message: <39350ba7@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] iname com> wrote in message
news:39344177@news.povray.org...
> It might be a good idea if the logo designers could explain the concepts
of
> their logos. On the other hand, logos should make sense without an
> explanation. When you normally see a logo, you don't get any explanation,
so
> a explanation shouldn't be nessesary.
I think a logo can be good by itself and even better when you get the
explanation. eg. I like the Nike logo quite much, but I won't say it makes
sense. With an explanation, my apreciation of this logo would certainly
change (is it clever, amusing or dumb or boring?). Given the size of a text
file, it would be a pity if authors could not explain themselves. Another
example, although a less direct one, is the IRTC : I read many times
voters/commenters writing things like "I did not understand/like this image
at first, but after reading the text, I find it excellent." To summarise, I
would say that a good logo is good by itself and is good with the
explanation.
> So I don't know. What do others think?
>
> And by the way, what do you think of the image formats themselves?
They're OK by me. I'd just make the custom formats freer, more custom.
Something like : any number of images, any format, with a maximum total
number of pixels of 194400 (=180^2*2+360^2) for all images combined. I just
don't like too strict guidelines for any project. (OT: during my
architectural studies, I had some projects with very strict presentation
rules. The last I had, I respected every rule [a rare occurrence], but drew
the time, the projects that appropriately broke the rules got the upper
scores. The difficulty being to know when, how and why to break the rules.)
Povingly
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Philippe Debar wrote:
>I like the Nike logo quite much, but I won't say it makes
>sense. With an explanation, my apreciation of this logo would certainly
>change (is it clever, amusing or dumb or boring?)
If I'm not mistaken the Nike logo symbolises the wings of the greek goddess
Nike. She is the goddess of victory and bringer of good messages.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> I think a logo can be good by itself and even better
> when you get the explanation.
I agree.
> Given the size of a text file, it would be a pity if
> authors could not explain themselves.
The size was never a problem.
> Another example, although a less direct one, is the
> IRTC : I read many times voters/commenters writing
> things like "I did not understand/like this image at
> first, but after reading the text, I find it excellent."
The problem here is that a logo ought to be excellent even without any
explaination.
> To summarise, I would say that a good logo is good by
> itself and is good with the explanation.
I agree.
> > So I don't know. What do others think?
I wrote that, and I still don't know the answer.
Lets start a discussion about it later and finish this discussion first.
> > And by the way, what do you think of the image
> > formats themselves?
>
> They're OK by me. I'd just make the custom formats
> freer, more custom.
Hmm, if more people think your suggestion is better, then we should go with
that one instead. Try to start a new thread where you formulate your
suggestion clearly and ask what people think of 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> logos should make sense without an explanation
Absolutely!
--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" wrote:
> Based on the feedback I have got, I have made a new
> suggestion for the submission formats in the POV-Ray
> Logo Contest. 2 "black and white" versions, 2 "color"
> versions, and 3 "custom" versions.
<snip>
> What do you think? I hope as many as possible will reply.
OK, it seems like this thread no longer grows now.
It seems to me that people generally think the suggestion is OK.
I have got some positive replies, some with questions which I have trid to
answer, but no directly negative replies (where "negative" simply means "not
agreeing").
So if I get no objections, I will include this in the rules of the contest.
I will wait, say 3 days, so you have time to reply if you have any
objections.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
