Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff suggested.
Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying the
file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if
I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'eye3big.jpg' (17 KB) Download 'eyecon2c-3.gif' (1 KB) Download 'eyecon3.gif' (2 KB) Download 'eyecon3-64.gif' (3 KB)

Preview of image 'eye3big.jpg'

Preview of image 'eyecon2c-3.gif'

Preview of image 'eyecon3.gif'

Preview of image 'eyecon3-64.gif'

"TonyB" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
news:39177282@news.povray.org...
> Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff
suggested.
> Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying
the
> file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up
if
> I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.

Lookin' good, Tony!  It's starting to look nice, clean, and professional
(seriously).  Personally, to keep the clean and simple look, keep it
something like this.

I just got how the eye relates to POV.  Persistance of VISION.  Duh :)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Post a reply to this message

I personally liked the previous post better...
It looked more like an official business logo...
=)=)=)=).

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:

> Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff suggested.
> Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying the
> file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if
> I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.

I liked the old one better.

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>    ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http:/www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

Hm. It kinda got out of hand. As I've said, I believe it gets too
complicated with a torus _and_ a sphere in the middle.

I got an idea:
What about pigmenting the "eye ball" with a radial with a small color band
from -0.1 to 0.1, for example, and rotating it to align it horizontally? It
would mimic some kind of "cats" pupil, if you see what I mean... Sounds
silly? Don't bother. It might look okay, but wouldn't actually look like an
eye, anyway, thinking about it.

I might be picky, but it seems that you've swept an ellipsoid, and that on
the thick end of the sweep,  the ellipsoid is somewhat "skewed". Maybe it's
okay, but was it supposed to be this way? (I'm not saying anything else
looks better!)

Simen

PS:
AARGH! You've got one of those rat-like-dogs!?

>Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff suggested.
>Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying
the
>file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if
>I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.

Post a reply to this message

I like it but it does not say 'POV-RAY' to me.  The plain cheacker icon
that currently comes with it does.  

TonyB wrote:
> 
> Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff suggested.
> Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying the
> file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if
> I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.
> 
>  [Image]
> 
>  [Image]
> 
>  [Image]
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

>I like it but it does not say 'POV-RAY' to me.  The plain cheacker icon
>that currently comes with it does.


I does to me too, but the checkered plain represents *any* raytracer, and is
not POV-specific.

Post a reply to this message

As per someone's suggestion, I'll answer everyone in one message.

I can see that most of you aren't happy with the change. No problem, I was
just testing another angle, we can always go back and take another
direction. But which?

>What about pigmenting the "eye ball" with a radial with a small color band
>from -0.1 to 0.1, for example, and rotating it to align it horizontally? It
>would mimic some kind of "cats" pupil, if you see what I mean... Sounds
>silly? Don't bother. It might look okay, but wouldn't actually look like an
>eye, anyway, thinking about it.

You know what? I already tried using radial. Too complex, not particularily
nice.

>I might be picky, but it seems that you've swept an ellipsoid, and that on
>the thick end of the sweep,  the ellipsoid is somewhat "skewed". Maybe it's
>okay, but was it supposed to be this way? (I'm not saying anything else
>looks better!)

Yes, well, I rotated in z by 35 degrees, then scaled it, so it should skew.


>AARGH! You've got one of those rat-like-dogs!?

Yes. :)  Best dog I've ever had.

Post a reply to this message

"TonyB" wrote:
> As per someone's suggestion, I'll answer
> everyone in one message.
>
> I can see that most of you aren't happy
> with the change. No problem, I was just
> testing another angle, we can always go
> back and take another direction.
> But which?

From version 1 to version 2 you changed the shape of the edge so it looks
more like an eye. That is good I think!

From version 2 to version 3 you changed the pupil. That was not good I
think. You should change it back to being a simple sphere. That seems to be
what others say too.

Since version 1 you have also changed the colors. You have used a form of
red-green gradient for the edge. I personally preferred the plain colors
like in logo 1. Not so much the particular colors you used, but the fact
that you didn't use a gradient, and that the edge and pupil were two
different, yet close colors. I think it looked more stylistic and less
see-how-colorful-I-can-make-it-like.

However, it seems that many others prefer the gradient.

> "Simon Kvaal" wrote:
> > I might be picky, but it seems that
> > you've swept an ellipsoid, and that
> > on the thick end of the sweep, the
> > ellipsoid is somewhat "skewed".
> > Maybe it's okay, but was it supposed
> > to be this way? (I'm not saying
> > anything else looks better!)
>
> Yes, well, I rotated in z by 35 degrees,
> then scaled it, so it should skew.

I think you should keep it that way. It's more like an eye-brow this way,
than if the edge ended in a perfect half circle. Not that anybody said that
you should change it, it was just a comment.

By the way, I don't think the black and white version should have those
white highlights. I liked your own version better.

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

On Mon, 8 May 2000 21:03:02 -0400, "TonyB" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet>
wrote:

>Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff suggested.
>Do the rest of you like it? Forgive me for not typing more or specifying the
>file sizes but my chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if
>I got the calculator to figure that out. Thanks for understanding. Enjoy.

Somehow I don't like the shape of it. What bothers me is the contour
of the eye. To me, it seems too thick and the thickness itself could
decrease in a more visually appealing way. Sorry for being picky.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <39177282@news.povray.org>, "TonyB" 
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

> Here's the latest update. I changed the pupil to what Chris Huff 
> suggested. Do the rest of you like it?

I like it...but I think the eye needs to be closed a little more, so the 
top and bottom are closer to the outer rim of the iris. And maybe make 
the radius of the small end of the outer part a bit smaller, maybe half 
it's current size. And the color...the yellow part on the left looks 
kind of drab, maybe you could brighten it a little. And the iris is a 
bit more purple than I was thinking of, but it looks nice.
The black-white version doesn't look right though, the center is still a 
black dot. I would suggest a smaller black dot within a black circle.


> Forgive me for not typing more or specifying the file sizes but my 
> chihuahua is asleep on my lap and it would wake her up if I got the 
> calculator to figure that out. 

Don't you have a calculator program on your computer?(I have at least 5)
A chihuahua wouldn't last 5 minutes in our house...it would either get 
chewed up like a dog toy by our gordon setter puppy or our doberman, or 
one of the cats would get it and you would never see it again...

-- 
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

>From version 2 to version 3 you changed the pupil. That was not good I
>think. You should change it back to being a simple sphere. That seems to be
>what others say too.

OK, I'll change it back (luckily, all it involves is commenting two lines
and uncommenting another. :)

>Since version 1 you have also changed the colors.
>However, it seems that many others prefer the gradient.

If it makes the people happy, I've got to leave it that way. Besides, it's
not a really fancy gradient, and gives it a little more style without
increasing complexity, don't you think?

>I think you should keep it that way. It's more like an eye-brow this way,
>than if the edge ended in a perfect half circle. Not that anybody said that
>you should change it, it was just a comment.

A good one, I must add. It gave it that edge it was missing. Thanks. :)

>By the way, I don't think the black and white version should have those
>white highlights. I liked your own version better.

I don't think there should be any problem with providing both versions for
people to use officially, right?

Post a reply to this message

>Somehow I don't like the shape of it. What bothers me is the contour
>of the eye. To me, it seems too thick and the thickness itself could
>decrease in a more visually appealing way. Sorry for being picky.


Could you be a little more specific on the "could decrease in a more
visually appealing way" part?

Post a reply to this message

>I like it...but I think the eye needs to be closed a little more, so the
>top and bottom are closer to the outer rim of the iris.

What say the rest of you to this? I'll change (if neccessary) it as soon as
I get more opinions.

>And maybe make
>the radius of the small end of the outer part a bit smaller, maybe half
>it's current size.

I'll give it a try, and see what happens. The end is supposed to represent
the lacrimal gland, hence the red color.

>And the color...the yellow part on the left looks
>kind of drab, maybe you could brighten it a little.

I only established the first part (green) and the last part (red), the rest
is interpolated by the blobs. I have no control over the intensity of the
yellow. If you could give me any ideas on how to do this, I would appreciate
it.

>And the iris is a
>bit more purple than I was thinking of, but it looks nice.

I wasn't able to find the color you used. If you can give me the RGB of it,
I'd be greatful.

>The black-white version doesn't look right though, the center is still a
>black dot. I would suggest a smaller black dot within a black circle.

How do I do that?

>Don't you have a calculator program on your computer? (I have at least 5)

I forgot... hehe...

>A chihuahua wouldn't last 5 minutes in our house...it would either get
>chewed up like a dog toy by our gordon setter puppy or our doberman, or
>one of the cats would get it and you would never see it again...

Mine's ankle seems to be broken... <grumble> stupid little cousins playing
with the dog like it's a toy... <mumble>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3918a8d0@news.povray.org>, "TonyB" 
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

> I'll give it a try, and see what happens. The end is supposed to 
> represent the lacrimal gland, hence the red color.

And people are worried about giving it an iris... :-)


> I only established the first part (green) and the last part (red), 
> the rest is interpolated by the blobs. I have no control over the 
> intensity of the yellow. If you could give me any ideas on how to do 
> this, I would appreciate it.

Ah, I used a radial pigment ranging from red to yellow to green in my 
version. I had to rotate it a bit to get it aligned right, but it works 
and is easily adjustable.


> >And the iris is a
> >bit more purple than I was thinking of, but it looks nice.
> 
> I wasn't able to find the color you used. If you can give me the RGB 
> of it, I'd be greatful.

color rgb < 0.3, 0, 0.8>


> How do I do that?

Ah, I will attach an image instead of making another attempt at an 
explanation.(I seem to be pretty bad at explanations)
In fact, I will make an icon version as well, and a "fancy" version, to 
show something of what could be done with the logo.(BTW, the small 
number of spheres in the outer curve is intentional.)
You could even make a version where the "pupil" is a distorted image of 
a checkered plane. :-)

-- 
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

Attachments:
Download 'BW POV Logo.jpg' (5 KB) Download 'POV Icon.jpg' (2 KB) Download 'POV Logo.jpg' (20 KB)

Preview of image 'BW POV Logo.jpg'

Preview of image 'POV Icon.jpg'

Preview of image 'POV Logo.jpg'

Conclusion: I would have to design 3 separate versions of the logo to
satisfy you. One "regular", one "fancy" (for large versions), and one "black
and white".

I really need to know if others like your ideas. If they don't, then I'm
sorry, I can't change it just for you. OK? Thanks for your support and
suggestions. :)

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 09 May 2000 21:21:09 -0500, Chris Huff
<chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>Ah, I will attach an image instead of making another attempt at an 
>explanation.(I seem to be pretty bad at explanations)

I like your third image attachment, as an extrapolation of Tony's
logo. It would sometimes be useful to have a more elaborate
illustration that echoed the logo.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 9 May 2000 19:00:28 -0400, "TonyB" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet>
wrote:

>>Somehow I don't like the shape of it. What bothers me is the contour
>>of the eye. To me, it seems too thick and the thickness itself could
>>decrease in a more visually appealing way. Sorry for being picky.
>
>Could you be a little more specific on the "could decrease in a more
>visually appealing way" part?
>
I know, bad wording on my side, sorry.

The left part is too thick, and it might look better if the swoosh
ended in a point instead of a sphere. The thick end of the swoosh
could use some work, it looks to me too heavy and maybe a bit sloppy.

I'll try to come up with a sketch which illustrates what I mean.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"TonyB" wrote:
> > it seems that many prefer the gradient.
>
> If it makes the people happy, I've got
> to leave it that way.

Or... we could make several versions!

> Besides, it's not a really fancy gradient,
> and gives it a little more style without
> increasing complexity, don't you think?

Well, no, as I said I think it gives it *less* style, but that's just me I
guess.

> > By the way, I don't think the black and
> > white version should have those white
> > highlights. I liked your own version better.
>
> I don't think there should be any problem
> with providing both versions for people to
> use officially, right?

Right! Likewise with the colors I think...

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 prefer v2 which looks more balanced (to my eyes that is). The added
details are unecessary and work against the "logoness" of the shape. V2
looks professional while v3 looks more amateurish.


Keep on the good work



Philippe

Post a reply to this message