don't forget metacreations: http://www.metacreations.com

caligari's and newtek's are pretty simple when you break them down.

if you look under softimage XSI from the homepage, you'll see a very fine
logo for that product.

on the pages for genesis 3d and armanisoft, you'll find what I would call
banners, not logos.

The biggest distinction to make is that it is not that a logo cannot be
complex, employing chromed effects and 3d effects and such, but that the
basic design must have merit in and of itself without the employment of
those effects. Perhaps the case I am trying to make is that a good logo can
be displayed simply, not that it necessarily will be.

--
Dan D.

"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:390C7792.A814F3B3@pacbell.net...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:46:58 -0700, Ken wrote:
>Rune wrote:
>
>> Firstly, there are many cases where you would want a low resolution of the
>> logo, for example for in icon, which is just 32*32 pixels, or on those tiny
>> banners you put on websites (POV-Ray 3 NOW!).
>
>Don't confuse a logo competition with an icon competition. They are not
>the same thing and have two totally different intended purposes.

I think that a logo for a program should be usable as an icon for this
program. It should also be usable on glossy brochures, web pages,
printed documentation, letterheads on faxes, and (in the special case
of povray as an image-producing software) as a "watermark" on generated
images.

To be suitable for all these purposes, it needs to obey several
constraints:

1) It needs to be at least recognizable at VERY low resolutions to be
   used as an icon.
   The low resolution version of the logo may be only part of the full
   logo (for example, it may be missing the text "pov-ray" for all the
   O-with-V logo variations).

2) It needs to be recognizable in black and white - documentation will 
   often be printed on a black-and-white printer, and an unrecognizable 
   black blob on the title page won't look good. The resolution
   requirements for the bw version are probably a little less stringent,
   but you can't completely ignore them (think of faxes or watermarks on
   pictures).

3) It needs to look good at high resolution and in color. 

From this follow a number of "shoulds":

1) The logo should consist of rather large, smooth features, which can
    be scaled to almost any resolution.

2) If colors are used, they should really be part of the logo, but not 
   be necessary to recognize it.
   
   Logo 6 is a good example: There is a reason for the cube to be red,
   green and blue (reference to the RGB color space), and the logo would
   always have the top green and the left side blue when represented in
   color. Even when wou see only a very tiny red/green/blue cube where
   the letters POV on top aren't recognizable, you would immediately
   think "POV-Ray". If the cube is cyan/magenta/yellow, you wouldn't.
   OTOH, the logo is still recognizable in bw.

   In contrast, the golden color of logo 2 doesn't seem to me part of
   the logo. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be silver or
   neon-green.

Actually, I think these two points hold even in the absence of technical
constraints. People recognize simple shapes easier than complex shapes,
and they also tend to recognize the same shape with no colors, or the
same colors with a slightly different shape.

	hp

-- 
   _  | 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

"Ken" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> > To prove that a logo by definition is
> > very simple, I think we could all go
> > hunting for logos on the internet and
> > post links to them here.
>
> Since we are talking about 3D programs
> let's explore the logos of products that
> are made for 3D work.
>
> Calagary truespace
> http://www.caligari.com/

On that page I could see 3 different versions of their logo. If you look at
the things those three versions have in common only, the resulting logo
becomes quite simple.

> Animation master
> http://www.hash.com/products/am.asp

I couldn't find their logo on that page. Please specify what you see as
their logo. I don't remember a logo for A:M even though I have the program.

> Newtech makers of lightwave
> http://www.newtek.com/

Here's a more simple version:

http://www.newtek.com/images/nt_lowfi_logo.jpg

> Genisis 3D
> http://www.silicond.demon.co.uk/

I couldn't find their logo on that page. How can you know that the text
saying "Genesis 3D" isn't just a fancy header?

> Soft Image
> http://www.softimage.com/

What do you mean the logo is? Please specify.

> And one of my all time favorites -
> http://www.armanisoft.ch/

In my opinion they don't know how a good logo should be, but I know that
that is not a real argument. I would like to see more logos of big
well-known companies.

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 J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!

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 found a very good page about making logos here:

http://www.turtlesweb.com/articles/logo.html

Basically, it states exactly what I have been trying to say.

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

Rune wrote:
> 
> Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!

I have had my say. If you people disagree with me that is your perogitive
and I will persue this no further.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 22:25:34 +0200, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:

>In my opinion they don't know how a good logo should be, but I know that
>that is not a real argument. I would like to see more logos of big
>well-known companies.

One of the best logos I've ever seen is Sun's. Very, very nifty and
really simple in design.


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

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :

<snip keeper list of 3d sites>

Of the ones who had a logo they were, when reduced to basics, of two types,
a shape, or a shape with the name printed on it.

I don't think that Povray should try to emulate those other programs anyway.
It is a whole different thing and deserves the classiest and most
professional of logos.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> It is a whole different thing and deserves the classiest and most
> professional of logos.

This is the point I have been trying to hammer home all along. A logo
for POV-Ray demands a high level of craftsmanship. Simplicity may
sell gas and oil but not POV-Ray.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>
> This is the point I have been trying to hammer home all along. A logo
> for POV-Ray demands a high level of craftsmanship. Simplicity may
> sell gas and oil but not POV-Ray.
>

    I get your point about craftsmanship, but don't think it is exclusive of
simplicity. So far we haven't seen a good example of both in one logo (IMO)
but it's out there somewhere. I think we should not give up until we find
both.

Post a reply to this message