 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
1) 2 x black and white format (no shades of gray, except for
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.
This format could be used for the POV-Ray icon, for webpages, for
water-marks in people's images, and many other things.
2) 2 x color format. Only for logos that should have an official way of
coloring them. 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.
This format could be used for the POV-Ray icon, for webpages, and many
other things.
3) 3 x custom format. 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.
This format could be used for webpages, banners, splash-screens,
wallpapers, and many other things.
I think almost every possible use is covered in by these formats, when you
keep in mind that they are previews/examples only.
What do you think? I hope as many as possible will reply.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
I'd prefer a black and white image as a watermark, but I find it very hard
to make a good one myself.
--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
RE: 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
Do submitions have to include all these listed (for a total of 7), or can a
submition contain any one?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"C.J." wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > 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
>
> Do submissions have to include all these listed
> (for a total of 7), or can a submission contain
> any one?
As stated in the details, the 2 black and white versions are required, the
color formats are only for logos that should have an official way of
coloring them, and the custom formats are optional (you can make 0, 1, 2, or
3 custom versions of your logo).
The reason the black and white formats are required is that there's a rule
in the POV-Ray Logo Contest that says that the logos must be presentable and
easy recognizable in just black and white. In order for the voters to decide
if the logos follow this requirement, they must see the logo presented in
just black and white.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
