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

I may be wrong, but I think that the logo is meant to be displayed ( as a
banner or anything else) for the homepage and the icon to start POV (in
window$ case).





> 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

I tried man -k logo and got the following (Red Hat 6.2):

$ man -k logo
inimf                (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
inimf [mf]           (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
inimf [virmf]        (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
logout [builtins2]   (1)  - bash built-in commands, see bash(1)
mf                   (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
mf [inimf]           (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
mf [virmf]           (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
virmf                (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
virmf [inimf]        (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
virmf [mf]           (1)  - Metafont, a language for font and logo
design
xlogo                (1x)  - X Window System logo
xroger               (1)  - throbbing X logo, of a sort

;-)

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

<ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:

> I may be wrong, but I think that the logo is meant to be displayed
> (as a banner or anything else) for the homepage and the icon to
> start POV (in window$ case).

A version of a logo could (and probably would) be reduced in size and 
quality to be used as a desktop icon for the povray application, but 
that's _not_ what the primary purpose of a logo is.  Logos are for 
advertising, and you hardly need to advertise a product to someone who 
has already downloaded it, uncompressed it, and installed it on their 
hard drive.

That's one of the problems with this whole "competition" - there is one 
camp of people who want the name "povray" (however you decide to spell 
it) in the logo itself.  They don't seem to realise that when you crunch 
an image down to 32x32 pixels, letters are nothing more than a blur.

That leaves you with two options:  Either you drop the name from the 
logo, or you simply stylise the name and forget about any cool sort of 
image to go along with it.  You can't fit both in 32x32.

Regardless, given that we're not a company with product to sell to 
consumers, the _only_ use we have for a logo at all is to recruit others 
into the povray community.  And the only _feasible_ way of doing that is 
by including the logo on the final art.

Now, we all know how pedantic we are about our own works, and none of us 
want to put some silly little logo onto our traces if it's going to 
stand out like a sore thumb and spoil the whole thing.  That's why it's 
pointless talking about colour schemes - blue, pink, rainbow, who cares 
- none of them will ever blend in with anyone's trace, and hence the 
logo will never get included.

Banners for websites are completely different to logos.  Banners can be 
huge (compared to logos), you've got plenty of space for images and 
text, and even animations, if you want.

And that's the _main_ problem with this whole "competition" - there 
seems to be a pervasive and narrow mindset that we must only have _one_ 
logo which should be used for _everything_.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain silly.  You don't use hammers 
to bash in screws, you don't race four-wheel drives in Formula 1, and 
you don't start fires by rubbing sticks together - you should use the 
right tools for the right job.

That means if we want a banner that can be displayed on web pages, then 
we design the best banner we can; if we want an icon for the povray 
application, then we design the best icon we can, and if we want a 
watermark/imprint to go on people's finished traces, then we design the 
best watermark/imprint we can.  A single logo can and will _NEVER_ do 
all three tasks well.

And if all this time is being spent on designing a logo that, regardless 
of how good it is, will only ever do a mediocre job at everything, then 
what's the point?

The right tools for the right job - that's all I'm saying.

Henry.

Post a reply to this message

Hi!
I thought I would throw one more log on the fire. That being the final image
itself (whatever form it takes) and its download time for a site. An
animated banner or logo may look cool, but if it takes to long to download
then visitors will become ticked that the page is taking to long to donwload
and they will move on to some place else on the Net. Not a good idea for the
site or the POV community. Although the buzz on high speed connections are
all over the net, TV, and print. The truth is most people out there still
connect to the net using an analog modem with a sad 28.8k/sec connection.
speed myself included... :(
File size is still important and it should be considered.

--
C.J. - Pov User.
E-Mail: hou### [at] yahoocom
website: www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
forum: www.delphi.com/povraytth/start

Henry <htp### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:htp-560EC2.10360710052000@news.povray.org...

> <ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>
> > I may be wrong, but I think that the logo is meant to be displayed
> > (as a banner or anything else) for the homepage and the icon to
> > start POV (in window$ case).
>
> A version of a logo could (and probably would) be reduced in size and
> quality to be used as a desktop icon for the povray application, but
> that's _not_ what the primary purpose of a logo is.  Logos are for
> advertising, and you hardly need to advertise a product to someone who
> has already downloaded it, uncompressed it, and installed it on their
> hard drive.
>
> That's one of the problems with this whole "competition" - there is one
> camp of people who want the name "povray" (however you decide to spell
> it) in the logo itself.  They don't seem to realise that when you crunch
> an image down to 32x32 pixels, letters are nothing more than a blur.
>
> That leaves you with two options:  Either you drop the name from the
> logo, or you simply stylise the name and forget about any cool sort of
> image to go along with it.  You can't fit both in 32x32.
>
> Regardless, given that we're not a company with product to sell to
> consumers, the _only_ use we have for a logo at all is to recruit others
> into the povray community.  And the only _feasible_ way of doing that is
> by including the logo on the final art.
>
> Now, we all know how pedantic we are about our own works, and none of us
> want to put some silly little logo onto our traces if it's going to
> stand out like a sore thumb and spoil the whole thing.  That's why it's
> pointless talking about colour schemes - blue, pink, rainbow, who cares
> - none of them will ever blend in with anyone's trace, and hence the
> logo will never get included.
>
> Banners for websites are completely different to logos.  Banners can be
> huge (compared to logos), you've got plenty of space for images and
> text, and even animations, if you want.
>
> And that's the _main_ problem with this whole "competition" - there
> seems to be a pervasive and narrow mindset that we must only have _one_
> logo which should be used for _everything_.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain silly.  You don't use hammers
> to bash in screws, you don't race four-wheel drives in Formula 1, and
> you don't start fires by rubbing sticks together - you should use the
> right tools for the right job.
>
> That means if we want a banner that can be displayed on web pages, then
> we design the best banner we can; if we want an icon for the povray
> application, then we design the best icon we can, and if we want a
> watermark/imprint to go on people's finished traces, then we design the
> best watermark/imprint we can.  A single logo can and will _NEVER_ do
> all three tasks well.
>
> And if all this time is being spent on designing a logo that, regardless
> of how good it is, will only ever do a mediocre job at everything, then
> what's the point?
>
> The right tools for the right job - that's all I'm saying.
>
> Henry.

Post a reply to this message

In article <htp-560EC2.10360710052000@news.povray.org>, Henry 
<htp### [at] maccom> wrote:

> That's one of the problems with this whole "competition" - there is one 
> camp of people who want the name "povray" (however you decide to spell 
> it) in the logo itself.  They don't seem to realise that when you crunch 
> an image down to 32x32 pixels, letters are nothing more than a blur.
> 
> That leaves you with two options:  Either you drop the name from the 
> logo, or you simply stylise the name and forget about any cool sort of 
> image to go along with it.  You can't fit both in 32x32.

I have a version of the "eye" logo with the text "POV-Ray" below it on 
my desktop, the text is fairly easy to read in the preview icon. I could 
post the icon in .binaries.images if you want, but the big version is 
already posted there.

-- 
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

In article <chrishuff_99-14E145.21310909052000@news.povray.org>, Chris 
Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>> They don't seem to realise that when you crunch an image down to
>> 32x32 pixels, letters are nothing more than a blur.
...
> I have a version of the "eye" logo with the text "POV-Ray" below it on 
> my desktop, the text is fairly easy to read in the preview icon. I could 
> post the icon in .binaries.images if you want, but the big version is 
> already posted there.

< checks with quick test... >

Well, I need to get down to 6pt (!) before I can even fit 'PoV-Ray' in a 
32px wide image.  I guess that just leaves open the individual's 
definition of the word 'blur'.

Henry.

( who's preferred browser font size is 12pt )

Post a reply to this message