In povray.general Henry <htp### [at] maccom> wrote:
: Pop quiz:  What's NASA's logo?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/hotnasa.gif

: What's Amazon.com's logo?

http://www.amazon.com/g/nav/kitchen/product-type-gateway.gif

: What's IBM's logo?

http://www.ibm.com/i/v9/m/fi_fi/ibml.gif

  Yes, their logo has the name of the company, but not alone. There are
decorations and a recognizable shape in each one of them.


-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> : What's IBM's logo?
> 
> http://www.ibm.com/i/v9/m/fi_fi/ibml.gif
> 
>   Yes, their logo has the name of the company, but not alone. There are
> decorations and a recognizable shape in each one of them.
> 

They even had once a ad campain with three pictograms:

eye
bee
?  

I've forgotten the third one but I liked the whole thing

Marc

-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

In article <slr### [at] tealhhjpat>, 
hjp### [at] SiKituwsracat (Peter J. Holzer) wrote:

>> Pop quiz: What's NASA's logo? What's Amazon.com's logo? What's IBM's
>> logo?
>>
>> I think I'd be pretty safe in saying that _everyone_ here knows what 
>> those organisations are, but I would be very surprised if anyone
>> could describe the logos of all three.  Why is this the case? 
>> It's quite simply that NASA is 'NASA', IBM is 'IBM', and Amazon.com
>> is 'Amazon.com'. 
> 
> Er, no. While NASA may not have a logo (although I seem to connect the
> name always with a certain font where the "A" doesn't have a horizontal
> bar), Amazon and IBM do have a logo: Amazon has[1] a black triangle with
> a white meandring river in it (presumably the Amazon in an "A"). IBM has
> an intersection of the three letters "IBM" with horizontal bars.

I was trying to point out that we recognise those organisations by their 
distinctive names, as opposed to their their logos.  I was not 
suggesting that they didn't actually have logos.

Henry.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3917d4e0@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

> : Pop quiz:  What's NASA's logo?
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/hotnasa.gif
> 
> : What's Amazon.com's logo?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/g/nav/kitchen/product-type-gateway.gif
> 
> : What's IBM's logo?
> 
> http://www.ibm.com/i/v9/m/fi_fi/ibml.gif

I'm sorry, I should have clarified the meaning of the phrase "pop quiz" 
to specifically exclude research and referencing.  My mistake.

Henry.

Post a reply to this message

NASA's logo is a space shuttle with some inscription

Peter J. Holzer wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 09 May 2000 05:08:30 +0930, Henry wrote:
>>Pop quiz: What's NASA's logo? What's Amazon.com's logo? What's IBM's
>>logo?
>>
>>I think I'd be pretty safe in saying that _everyone_ here knows what
>>those organisations are, but I would be very surprised if anyone could
>>describe the logos of all three.  Why is this the case?  It's quite
>>simply that NASA is 'NASA', IBM is 'IBM', and Amazon.com is
>>'Amazon.com'.
>
>Er, no. While NASA may not have a logo (although I seem to connect the
>name always with a certain font where the "A" doesn't have a horizontal
>bar), Amazon and IBM do have a logo: Amazon has[1] a black triangle with
>a white meandring river in it (presumably the Amazon in an "A"). IBM has
>an intersection of the three letters "IBM" with horizontal bars.
>
> hp
>
>[1] Make that "had". I just visited their web site and that logo isn't
>there any more. Instead they have the name amazon.com in two different
>fonts with a stupid orange arrow from the a to the o.
>
>--
>   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
>|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
>| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      |    -- Ale### [at] univieacat
>__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |       zum Thema Portale in at.linux

Post a reply to this message

"Henry" <htp### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:htp-585242.21192609052000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3917d4e0@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
> wrote:
>
> > : Pop quiz:  What's NASA's logo?
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I should have clarified the meaning of the phrase "pop quiz"
> to specifically exclude research and referencing.  My mistake.
>

    I was raised in Titusville, Florida and my father worked at NASA most of
my life. I could see the NASA logo from my high school parking lot (written
on the VAB). I have done several art projects using their logo in several
phases of it's development...

    So I didn't answer this quiz as I felt that would be cheating.

Post a reply to this message

In article <391737bd@news.povray.org>, "Bill DeWitt" 
<the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> I don't know why "we" want one, -I- want one that I can put into my
> scenes so that people will be able to tell by looking at it that it
> was made using POV-Ray.
...
> At most, we are trying to move POV-Ray up the respect ladder to where
> it belongs, rather than at the bottom of some other, perhaps lower
> quality, but commercial renderers.  I just want some people to see
> some of the amazing images that people make using POV-Ray and then
> recognize the little object that tells them what program was
> responsible for the quality.

In article <391### [at] 209softwarecom>, "Bryan Valencia" 
<bry### [at] 209softwarecom> wrote:

> A logo would be useful when artists credit their commercial work.
> It could be used to promote the use of POV for artists, web designers,
> etc.  It would help POV to be recognized as different than Bryce,
> Poser, Even Photoshop.

In article <3917bfa9@news.povray.org>, "Edward Coffey" 
<e.c### [at] ugradunimelbeduau> wrote:

> But POV does compete for the attention of 3D computer artists and
> programmers.  The more people involved, the more creative ideas for
> using and improving POV will be put forward, and the more tutorials,
> macros and patches will be written - thus benefiting the entire POV
> community.


What I gather from this is:

1) Growth of the povray community is seen as good.
2) A readily identifiable logo is seen as a recruitment tool.
3) Povray has a "poor cousin" image problem.

I'm going to leave 1 and 3 alone for the time being, and concentrate on 
the use of a logo as a recruitment tool...

I cannot remember the last time that I saw an image marked with a 
Photoshop, Poser, or Bryce logo.  Have I been blinkered, or does anyone 
else out there routinely see logos of said products on images?

What I *have* seen are galleries of Bryce and Poser images, which have 
been headlined or introduced with a Bryce or Poser _BANNER_ (we're 
talking in the ballpark of 200x50px).  More often, I've simply seen a 
hyperlink off some ordinary text.

This appears (to me, at least) to mean that the artists who create the 
works are perfectly happy to give credit where credit is due, but don't 
want their work spoilt by a completely foreign object being inserted 
into their art.

This leads me to the conclusion that _any_ logo we come up with will be 
sufficiently objectionable so as to simply not be displayed on final 
images, and thus defeating the primary reason for having a logo in the 
first place.  We may as well just have a banner contest!

However...

What if, rather than adopting a static logo, we adopt a stylized 3d 
_effect_ instead - one that can work in *with* the art, rather than 
against it?

Check this post to see what I mean:
 <htp-4F0571.22542909052000@news.povray.org>

If we can come up with something that can consistently create a subtle 
and recognisable effect in a corner of an image, then more artists are 
likely to include it in their final traces; and if it can be made so 
easy to include such an effect that the majority of artists "mark" their 
work as a matter of course, then this 'logo' might actually have an 
effect.

Otherwise, I just don't see any logo, regardless of how good it is, 
making a lick of difference, because no-one will include it.

Henry.

PS:  Musing...  It could even be possible to build this effect into the 
application itself, so that it is automatically applied to every image 
by default.  Naturally, one should be able to declate a variable in the 
.pov file which turns off the mark, but if the default mode is on, then 
the mark will proliferate!

Post a reply to this message

"Henry" <htp### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> I cannot remember the last time that I saw an image marked with a
> Photoshop, Poser, or Bryce logo.

    True, but then they have an advertising budget. Beyond that, we are not
PhotoShop, Poser or Bryce. We don't have to do what they do. We (generic
disclaimer) can come up with something different and better than what they
do if we try.

Post a reply to this message

>This leads me to the conclusion that _any_ logo we come up with will be
>sufficiently objectionable so as to simply not be displayed on final
>images, and thus defeating the primary reason for having a logo in the
>first place.  We may as well just have a banner contest!


You have my vote for a banner contest! Like you said, it would be
useful for doing some publicity to POV without spoiling the arts.

an animated banner would be great!

Post a reply to this message

Hi Henry!

I noticed that you said you think it would be better if we could add some
kind of "effect" to our images instead of a logo. In povray.binaries.images
you posted an example of a glass-like version of TonyB's eye logo added to
some images.

After seeing that, I think we may actually agree to some extent after all. I
have always said that the logos should be simple. If a logo is simple, it
can be presented in many ways. It can be presented in 3D, or just in black
and white, or as an "effect" to images. So what you are suggesting is still
a logo, only, it is presented in a certain way.

So what we want is still a logo, only, it must be simple, so it is flexible!

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