 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Maybe if the Sphere was less 'Spherish'.
Could you run that by me again?
BTW, the sphere was 1.75 in radius, now it's 1.8. Not much of a change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wanted to ask all of those POV users that frequent this group and also
hang out on the other POV groups on the Internet, be they in English or any
other language, to please post the different logos being submitted here, so
that everyone can give their opinions, then bring back the conclusions over
here. Please and thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scale < 1.0, 1.0, 0.75 >
"TonyB" <ben### [at] panama c-comnet> wrote in message
news:39195ea3@news.povray.org...
> >Maybe if the Sphere was less 'Spherish'.
>
> Could you run that by me again?
>
>
> BTW, the sphere was 1.75 in radius, now it's 1.8. Not much of a change.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> Well, here's the latest installment of my logo.
Version 4 that is. Please keep numbering the versions clearly. That makes it
easier for people to say what they think is better and worse compared to
other versions... :-)
> The fine-tunings included returning to the previous pupil
That is good I think.
> centering it in the eye, and making it a little bigger
I have compared this version and version 2 closely and I think you should
move the pupil up again and make it smaller like it was in version 2. The
centering doesn't look nice.
> including making the end a little smaller
The thin end of the edge is slightly thinner in this version.
It makes the logo unbalanced I think.
I think it was better in version 2.
> making the yellow stand out more in the gradient
I think it is too bright. It makes the logo unbalanced.
Try something in between this version and version 2.
> and making it end just a few degrees sooner.
I don't mind that.
> Oh, I also changed the highlights a smidgen (not really noticeable)
The phong highlight is tighter in this version.
I liked it better in version 2. But now I'm nit-picking!
Also:
The eye is slightly wider (or more closed) in this version. I think that is
good.
And now something general:
You made several different versions this time. 2 different black and white
versions, a 2D color version and a 3D color version. I think that is good.
We could say that the only thing that has to be the same in all the versions
is the outline. That way we could make versions with different colors too.
One version could have the colored gradient, while another could have 2
colors only, like in version 1. What do you think of this?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Version 4 that is. Please keep numbering the versions clearly. That makes
it
>easier for people to say what they think is better and worse compared to
>other versions... :-)
OK, OK.
>That is good I think.
Excellent.
>I have compared this version and version 2 closely and I think you should
>move the pupil up again and make it smaller like it was in version 2. The
>centering doesn't look nice.
Thinking it over, I must agree. The previous assymetry added a little
character.
>The thin end of the edge is slightly thinner in this version.
>It makes the logo unbalanced I think.
>I think it was better in version 2.
Unbalanced? Could it be that you see it like that because you saw version 2?
I'll try a value in between both, to see how that works.
>I think it is too bright. It makes the logo unbalanced.
>Try something in between this version and version 2.
Alright... <mumble> this is what I get for listening to Chris Huff...
<grumble>
>I don't mind that.
Excellent.
>The phong highlight is tighter in this version.
>I liked it better in version 2. But now I'm nit-picking!
The only difference is the eye, and the camera location. Maybe that's what
you're thinking about.
>The eye is slightly wider (or more closed) in this version. I think that is
>good.
No it isn't. The outer shape hasn't changed at all. I think you're being
fooled by the camera or colors, or something...
>You made several different versions this time. 2 different black and white
>versions, a 2D color version and a 3D color version. I think that is good.
Excellent.
>We could say that the only thing that has to be the same in all the
versions
>is the outline.
That's the idea.
>That way we could make versions with different colors too.
>One version could have the colored gradient, while another could have 2
>colors only, like in version 1. What do you think of this?
I'm hip with that. I like it with the blue colors, myself. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> > The thin end of the edge is slightly
> > thinner in this version. It makes the
> > logo unbalanced I think. I think it
> > was better in version 2.
>
> Unbalanced? Could it be that you see it
> like that because you saw version 2?
> I'll try a value in between both, to
> see how that works.
I think the thin end it too... what's it called? slight? slender? delicate?
frail? flimsy? One of the words here ought to be the right... Also, it might
vanish in small resolutions.
> > I think it is too bright. It makes the
> > logo unbalanced. Try something in
> > between this version and version 2.
>
> Alright... <mumble> this is what I get
> for listening to Chris Huff... <grumble>
Or maybe I'm the one who is wrong and you'll be mumbling over me...!
> > The phong highlight is tighter in this
> > version. I liked it better in version 2.
> > But now I'm nit-picking!
>
> The only difference is the eye, and the
> camera location. Maybe that's what you're
> thinking about.
Hmm, actually it's probably the darker color that makes the highlight
tighter. Never mind.
> > The eye is slightly wider (or more closed)
> > in this version. I think that is good.
>
> No it isn't. The outer shape hasn't changed
> at all.
The edge has changed from version 2 to this version.
However, after having had a closer look I can see that you're right that it
hasn't been made wider.
> I think you're being fooled by the camera
> or colors, or something...
You're probably right.
> > We could say that the only thing that has
> > to be the same in all the versions is the outline.
>
> That's the idea.
Excellent!
> > That way we could make versions with
> > different colors too. One version could
> > have the colored gradient, while another
> > could have 2 colors only, like in version
> > 1. What do you think of this?
>
> I'm hip with that. I like it with the blue
> colors, myself. :)
Excellent!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3919db29@news.povray.org>, "TonyB"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> Alright... <mumble> this is what I get for listening to Chris Huff...
> <grumble>
Hmm, judging from the response of others, maybe you shouldn't listen to
me any more. I seem to be the only person who likes my version of the
logo better. :-(
> I'm hip with that. I like it with the blue colors, myself. :)
Grumble mumble goofy water-softener pool cleaner colors grumble mumble
grumble...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Hmm, judging from the response of others, maybe you shouldn't listen to
>me any more. I seem to be the only person who likes my version of the
>logo better. :-(
Don't feel bad. Besides, I don't see why you can't make your own custom
version of the logo to suit yourself. That way we could all be happy. You
also seem to like to see individual spheres and have it upside down. That's
fine, if that's what you like. I don't mind, just keep it to yourself. :)
>Grumble mumble goofy water-softener pool cleaner colors grumble mumble
>grumble...
LOL :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice, I like this logo very much. Much better than v3. I took some
(small) liberties with your work.
(1) gamma "corrected" eyeflatcolor.png - I found the original one to be too
bright in comparison with the eye3dcolor;
(2) & (3) made "grey" versions - vs. "black" versions;
(4) made an 32x32pi 3d colour reduction;
(5) made a (naturally ugly) 3d black version.
The only thing I would try is to darken the yellow on the left side
slightly. It is a tad too bright to my taste this time. But it is already
much better than the old, more brownish, one.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'eyeflatcolor.png' (9 KB)
Download 'eye3dgray.png' (6 KB)
Download 'eyeflatgray.png' (4 KB)
Download 'eye3dcoloricon.png' (5 KB)
Download 'eye3dblack.png' (2 KB)
Preview of image 'eyeflatcolor.png'
Preview of image 'eye3dgray.png'
Preview of image 'eyeflatgray.png'
Preview of image 'eye3dcoloricon.png'
Preview of image 'eye3dblack.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>The only thing I would try is to darken the yellow on the left side
>slightly. It is a tad too bright to my taste this time. But it is already
>much better than the old, more brownish, one.
This will be fixed in the next version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
