 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PLC = POV-Ray Logo Competition.
Which general qualities should the logo have?
Should it be simple or detailed?
This seems to be the subject everyone wants to discuss, so let's discuss it
now although it was scheduled to be discussed at a later time.
In an attempt at starting this discussion I have tried to answer a question
raised by Ken:
Ken wrote:
> In an electronic computer environment like
> POV-Ray and the WWW why would you bother
> with a low resolution version of a logo ?
> I personally do not see the benefit. I
> mean if we were creating a logo for
> illustrator or some other print based
> program I could see a reason for it but
> not in a computer graphics related industry.
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!).
Secondly, the reason the logo should be simple is not just that it must be
suitable for small resolutions, but also that a simple logo is more
flexible. You can always add detail to a simple logo. A simple logo could be
presented in 2D versions, 3D versions, you could make it glow, burn, rotate,
and all kind of stuff, and still it would be the same logo. It is not as
easy to remove details from a detailed logo, because the details would be a
part of the logo, and thus unremovable. You would simply not know how many
details you could remove before it was not the same logo anymore.
As far as I have understood TonyB, Fabien Mosen, ddombrow, and others agree
with this, or at least something close, while Ken and some others don't
agree. Is that correct? What is the opinions of others? Please keep on
discussing!
Again I must point out that those who don't join the discussion cannot at a
later stage complain about the conclusions reached. So if you have any
opinion please reply. Reply even if
your opinion has already been stated by somebody else. That way we might be
able to see a general tendency.
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:
> 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.
--
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" wrote:
> Don't confuse a logo competition with an
> icon competition. They are not the same
> thing and have two totally different
> intended purposes.
As I see it, most good logos can be made into icons because they are so
simple.
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. If a logo is
available in different version it is the most simple version that counts.
Then we could see how simple a logo generally is. The more known company,
the better, because they know what they're doing. I think we will find out
that a logo generally is very simple and uses one or a few colors only.
Examples that I know without link references are the logos of Apple,
Windows, McDonald's, Intel, Shell, Nike, MTV, Amnesty International, and
hundreds more I can't remember right now. They all use one or a few colors
only, and they're all easily recognizable in a very low resolution, and in
black and white. Please remind me of / show me some that are more detailed,
because I can't think of any.
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:
> 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.
Finnish Railroads http://www.vr.fi
Voyetra/Turtle Beach http://www.voyetra.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Kivisalo www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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/
Animation master
http://www.hash.com/products/am.asp
Newtech makers of lightwave
http://www.newtek.com/
Genisis 3D
http://www.silicond.demon.co.uk/
Soft Image
http://www.softimage.com/
And one of my all time favorites -
http://www.armanisoft.ch/
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] pacbell net> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!
So do I. What would also be great is it you have some way of varying the
level of detail of the logo with larger sizes. You know, like if it's small
you see the general outline, but if it's large you can add more decorations
to it, since they would be visible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Please remind me of / show me some that are more detailed,
> because I can't think of any.
Simple one OpenGL - http://www.opengl.org/
and sgi's used to be good before it became 3 different coloured letters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
news:390caa04@news.povray.org...
> >Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!
>
> So do I. What would also be great is it you have some way of varying the
> level of detail of the logo with larger sizes. You know, like if it's
small
> you see the general outline, but if it's large you can add more
decorations
> to it, since they would be visible.
I agree. The logo should be able to have detail added in the larger
resolutions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> 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.
That's why we need a more general approach, that could declinate
into either simple or complex things, following the needs. A global
design could lead to logos, icons, splash screens, mousepads, t-shirts,
CD's, soap, ...
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
>
www.soundblaster.com/welcome.asp
The silver man on the right, is the logo of the SB Live! Platinum
And how about the EAX logo? I couldn't find the logo on the Internet,
but I think that most people now it.
Remco Poelstra
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> What would also be great is it you have
> some way of varying the level of detail
> of the logo with larger sizes. You know,
> like if it's small you see the general
> outline, but if it's large you can add
> more decorations to it, since they
> would be visible.
Err, yeah, that what I've been trying to say all the time. :-)
From the initial message in this thread:
"You can always add detail to a simple logo. A simple logo could be
presented in 2D versions, 3D versions, you could make it glow, burn, rotate,
and all kind of stuff"
I think there should not be one way of presenting the logo that should be
the "right" one. Instead people can make many different versions. All those
versions could be detailed and have a high level of CRAFTSMANSHIP (hint,
Ken!). But all the detailed versions would origin from one simple logo. How
about that?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > A logo for POV-Ray demands a high level
> > of craftsmanship. Simplicity may sell
> > gas and oil but not POV-Ray.
>
> That's why we need a more general approach,
> that could declinate into either simple
> or complex things, following the needs.
> A global design could lead to logos,
> icons, splash screens, mousepads, t-shirts,
> CD's, soap, ...
I agree that we need a general approach, that could be made into into both
simple and complex things, following the needs. I think the best way to do
this would be to have people submit simple logos. A simple logo can always
be made more detailed, while it is not so easy the other way.
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 <run### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> Secondly, the reason the logo should be simple is not just that it must be
> suitable for small resolutions, but also that a simple logo is more
> flexible.
And generally more memorable and more recognizable, which are two very
important qualities of a logo.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This may complmicate things a bit, but why not propose two versions of the
logo :
One meant for the icons and the very low resolution. ( up to 32 x 32) with
only the symbol or whatever representing POV (no lettering or anything else)
The other one, in a higher resolution, with the 'symbol', the lettering, and a
few effects.
There are many examples of two sized-versions in the 'logo world' out there (
IE5, Netscape, Winzip, Sounf Forge, Xgedit95 ...)
I'll post these examples in p.b.i )
Fabien Hénon
Franks a écrit :
> TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
> news:390caa04@news.povray.org...
> > >Peter J. Holzer, I agree completely with you!
> >
> > So do I. What would also be great is it you have some way of varying the
> > level of detail of the logo with larger sizes. You know, like if it's
> small
> > you see the general outline, but if it's large you can add more
> decorations
> > to it, since they would be visible.
>
> I agree. The logo should be able to have detail added in the larger
> resolutions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> PLC = POV-Ray Logo Competition.
>
> Which general qualities should the logo have?
OK, here is my opinion after following the various arguments.
Do not attempt to define what a logo is or is not. Let the person
submitting the logo to the competition define that for themselves.
Those of you wanting to submit simple logos do so.
Those of you wanting to submit complex logos do so.
It should not be up to the organizers to make decisions like this.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree, making the logo designer try to fit into submission guidelines such
as the ones last round will only serve to discourage people from submitting
logos.
--
Dan D.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 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.
>
ABC, NBC and CBS
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like your idea. Please post the examples. I would post them in .off-topic,
though, since they're not directly related to POV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 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.
>
For a -great- example of a simple logo presented in many intricate ways,
see the SCI-FI Channel logo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On my Siggraph '97 Demo Reel they have an explanation of how they did the
one with the glowing rings. Pretty cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Do not attempt to define what a logo is
> or is not. Let the person submitting the
> logo to the competition define that for
> themselves.
>
> Those of you wanting to submit simple
> logos do so.
>
> Those of you wanting to submit complex
> logos do so.
>
> It should not be up to the organizers to
> make decisions like this.
I don't think so.
Would you submit a hand drawn image for the IRTC ? No.
But what if was a really really nice hand drawn image?
No, it wouldn't be accepted because the IRTC is for rendered images only.
Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that a
good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors only,
and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
The logo can be *presented* in all kinds of ways, detailed or undetailed,
with many colors or not, 2D or 3D, with special effects or not, but the logo
*itself* should be simple as stated above.
A good page about how to make good logos:
http://www.turtlesweb.com/articles/logo.html
I really recommend that page!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nathan Kopp" wrote:
> Rune wrote...
> > Secondly, the reason the logo should be
> > simple is not just that it must be
> > suitable for small resolutions, but
> > also that a simple logo is more flexible.
>
> And generally more memorable and more
> recognizable, which are two very
> important qualities of a logo.
Ideed! That's the whole point with the logo!
I must remember that argument :-)
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" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> All the experts agree that a
> good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors
only,
> and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
> logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
>
Then why are we even discussing the general qualities of a Logo if you
have already consulted the "experts" and they have delimited what we can do?
I happen to almost agree with your description, but I don't feel obligated
to do things the way they have always been done just because someone says
that it would be better that way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > All the experts agree that a
> > good logo is a simple piece of 2D
> > graphics consisting of a few colors
> > only, and it must work in just black
> > and white too. Since we want to find
> > a good logo for POV-Ray, the
> > submitted logos should follow these
> > criteria.
>
> Then why are we even discussing the
> general qualities of a Logo if you
> have already consulted the "experts"
> and they have delimited what we can do?
I haven't. What I wrote was just my point of view.
I think it is valid to use the opinions of experts as a part of an argument,
because usually experts know what they're doing.
But it was just an argument, just my opinion. In the future I must remember
always to make that clear, I guess...
May I take note that you almost agree with the description I made?
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 disagree with your statement. I do agree that the final logo should follow
those criteria, but why not leave the intitial submissions open to anything
anyone wants to submit as a logo. Then we can say, this doesn't make for a
good logo, then we can ask for what it would look like with less detail. As
it is stated in the article, you can't exactly always define what makes logo
good, but when you see it, you just know it. So I say make submissions open,
it keeps ideas floating around better and may spark someone else who comes
up with a good design.
--
Dan D.
Rune wrote in message...
> Would you submit a hand drawn image for the IRTC ? No.
> But what if was a really really nice hand drawn image?
> No, it wouldn't be accepted because the IRTC is for rendered images only.
>
> Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
> word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
> good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors
only,
> and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
> logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> May I take note that you almost agree with the description I made?
>
Sure, and the "Almost" part is the part where you say "2D". In the past,
perhaps a flat logo was all they could do, but I think that we should be
able to think in 3D now. I can understand if "experts" aren't 3D ready, but
I am.
One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
>almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?
Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom...
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> > One of the best logos, for the most classy product in the world, for
> >almost a hundred years, has been 3D. Can you guess what I am thinking of?
>
> Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
>
http://www.ktsmotorsportsgarage.com/ault98/pages/rolls-spirit.html
Absolutely. Although they call it a "mascot" it is far more recognized than
the 'RR' logo they also use.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
>word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
>good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors only,
>and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
>logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
i agree.
saying that "i'm ready for 3d!!!1!" generates only messy p0V-rAy!!1!
text-shit-logos..
as i see it, the *basic* logo has to be simple black and white outline
without text.
(outline can be perspective, though, but truecolor shading etc. just makes
it unusable)
and "text" doesn't mean letter elements, it means a few lines of words, like
"pov-ray, persistence of vision raytracer".
that kind of things are far away from true logo.
then there could be colored/4d/whatever versions of that basic logo outline.
-alt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ddombrow" wrote:
> I do agree that the final logo should
> follow those criteria,
Glad we agree about that.
> but why not leave the initial
> submissions open to anything anyone
> wants to submit as a logo.
I think the reason we disagree is that we have a different idea of what
"submission" means. You think submissions are for any logos, including logos
that needs improvement. I think they are for finished logos only. I say
there are no such thing as initial submissions, only final submissions.
> Then we can say, this doesn't make for a
> good logo, then we can ask for what it
> would look like with less detail.
I agree that we should do this, but I think it should be *before* the
submissions.
When the logos have been submitted, it is too late to change them, so the
improvements you are talking about should be before the submissions.
I think people can post their logos in povray.binaries.images. There they
can get feedback, and they can improve it. When the logo doesn't need to be
improved anymore, they can be submitted.
> As it is stated in the article, you can't
> exactly always define what makes logo
> good, but when you see it, you just know
> it. So I say make submissions open, it
> keeps ideas floating around better and may
> spark someone else who comes up with a
> good design.
I say, keep the newsgroups open. The logos can be discussed there. I think
ideas and sparks will thrive anyway.
I hope you will reply to this and tell me what you 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Ron Parker" wrote:
> > > One of the best logos, for the most
> > > classy product in the world, for
> > > almost a hundred years, has been 3D.
> > > Can you guess what I am thinking of?
> >
> > Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
>
> http://www.ktsmotorsportsgarage.com/ault98/pages/rolls-spirit.html
>
> Absolutely. Although they call it a
> "mascot" it is far more recognized than
> the 'RR' logo they also use.
They call it a mascot. I do too.
You say it is a logo. Your only argument is that it is more recognized.
Why does the fact that it is more recognized make it a logo?
A mascot may be more recognized than a logo, but that doesn't mean that the
mascot *is* a logo.
I have yet to see a big, well-known company who has a logo that is not
presentable and easily recognizable in black and white (with no shades of
gray).
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
< lurk mode=off>
Hi everybody!
Just for the record : I agree with Rune, Peter J. Holzer and others. I think
a good logo should be simple. A simple shape, easily recognised,
good-looking in low-res and low colour.
Now, just because POV could have an official logo does not mean you could
not use your own favorite - or so I hope :-)
Povingly
Philippe
</lurk>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: PLC: General qualities of the logo.
Date: 4 May 2000 11:20:31
Message: <3911953f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(read in the London tube)
"Experts are not more right than other people,
They are wrong for more complicated reasons."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: PLC: General qualities of the logo.
Date: 4 May 2000 11:20:36
Message: <39119544@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:390f10d2@news.povray.org...
> Would you submit a hand drawn image for the IRTC ? No.
> But what if was a really really nice hand drawn image?
> No, it wouldn't be accepted because the IRTC is for rendered images only.
>
> Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
> word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
> good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors
only,
> and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
> logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
I think that using this conversation to potentially reject entries is a very
bad idea. This thread is useful as a guideline for future entrants and
future voters. But it should not become rules. The "simpleness" rule for
logos is like compositional rules for pictures : guidelines for those who
need/want them. such rules are made to be broken. Why reject a priori a
great logo just because it "does not follow the rules"? Sure, generally
speaking I think that simpleness is a logo must-be. "generally speaking".
Everybody submitting a logo now know that I generally find simple logos more
attractive, and hence know somewhat how I will vote. They will not be able
to say "I didn't know". But it stops right there. If a complex logo is
better than the other ones, it will get my vote.
Povingly
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
okay, point taken. I guess I was thinking of a slightly different
submissions process.
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
