 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In my humble opinion, the pov logo should be submitted as a short piece of
code, perhaps a macro, that allows the user to texture, scale and position
the object in the way that best suits them.
The competition should be both for simplicity and style, both in the image
and in the code.
See my example in pbi, not intended as a finished work. But as it is it
could be a reflective sphere and an (interior) checkered plane if you wanted
it to be...
One could make this as diverse, as intricate, or as black and white
simplistic as one wants, and at any resolution. The POVTeam could use it (or
any other submitted in this form) to generate their own trademarked images
for promotional or identification purposes.
Just an Idea...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
maybe even simpler that that, povray could add it as a watermarked stamp
(when requested to do so), stuffed away in a corner - similar to the tv
logos that seem to have crept there way onto virtually all channels....
in which case colour may not be appropiate..
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <kit### [at] dial pipexcom> wrote in message
news:390d8cba@news.povray.org...
> maybe even simpler that that, povray could add it as a watermarked stamp
> (when requested to do so), stuffed away in a corner - similar to the tv
> logos that seem to have crept there way onto virtually all channels....
>
> in which case colour may not be appropiate..
>
In that case, there is that inverse color trick that someone sent me and
I hope I safely stored away...
But to do that one could use any object or image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> In my humble opinion, the pov logo should
> be submitted as a short piece of code,
> perhaps a macro, that allows the user to
> texture, scale and position the object in
> the way that best suits them.
Hmm, I disagree.
If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray it would be limiting.
As vaihtoehto put it:
"why logos(!) should have been created with povray? i recommend that you
march in any professional art studio and say that their artists have to use
a ray-tracing software for creating black and white sketches. i bet you will
be laughed out."
However, I think it would be possible to recreate any black and white logo
in POV-Ray (no guarantee). But it will be hard work, therefore the logo
artists don't have to mess with it themselves.
> The competition should be both for simplicity
> and style, both in the image and in the code.
I'd say simplicity and style in the image only. Some simple and stylistic
logos might require complicated coding (if made with POV-Ray at all).
I know that several of the logos in the old competition were not made with
POV-Ray, and that includes some of the most successful of them IIRC. So
generally I am against, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.
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:
: "why logos(!) should have been created with povray?
What does it tell about a rendering program the fact that even its logo
is not possible to make with it?
(Rearrange the wording of that sentence if needed :) )
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray it would be limiting.
>
Well, the thing is that POV has a reputation of being a text driven,
platform independent program. If the logo was an image, to insert it in a
scene, you would need the image. With a coded object as a logo, one could
conceivably send the information needed by carrier pigeon or over the gossip
fence or written on a cafe napkin. IOW, text only.
As an object, it can be easily #included in any scene or completely
rewritten into any form of intricacy for any use. Still, if a flat b/w image
is needed, it can be made.
True, there are some things that can be done more easily in a paint
program than in POV-Ray, but who cares? The images I have seen so far would
be -extremely- easy to make in POV-Ray, but they weren't (in some cases).
Isn't that sort of like the carpenter buying a brick house? How can you
believe him when he tells you that a wood house is the best choice? Or if a
Chiropractor went to a M.D. for his back pain...
As for the "walking into a professional art studio" thing... posh. You
couldn't talk them into doing -any- work with POV, or if you could, they
might soon want to do -everything- with it like I often do... But even so,
again, who cares? We are not them. We don't have to do the same thing they
do to be professional. If we did we would be just another artist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've actually been trying to convert my logo from AI to POV using EPS2POV,
through Chris Huff. We've yet to be successful. It doesn't seem to like the
EPS that Illustrator outputs. :(
Basically, what I was going to try to prove is that Illustrator and POV are
very compatible, and that there shouldn't be any problem in making the logo
in Illustrator and then presenting it with POV in a nice 3D fashion, with
colored lights, and media, and all that jazz. See? I was trying to shut up
all those people who complained. We shouldn't fight over which program
creates the logo, so long as it fits POV-Ray, and represents it as it
deserves to be represented. Those are my 2c, anyway. Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At first, I thought that a POV logo has definitely to be made with POV.
But as a logo is either a 2D or a 3D image, it would be too limiting.
It would be an impossible task to show all the possibilities of POV in a single
LOGO.
In the 2D image case, it would be too limiting to use only POV.
POV is a great renderer, but how many of us only use it to create a scene.
Personnaly I use several tools to build a complete object ( let alone a complete
scene)
Fabien Hénon
Now that I think of it, may be that I should post this in the general NG
Rune a écrit :
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, the pov logo should
> > be submitted as a short piece of code,
> > perhaps a macro, that allows the user to
> > texture, scale and position the object in
> > the way that best suits them.
>
> Hmm, I disagree.
>
> If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray it would be limiting.
>
> As vaihtoehto put it:
>
> "why logos(!) should have been created with povray? i recommend that you
> march in any professional art studio and say that their artists have to use
> a ray-tracing software for creating black and white sketches. i bet you will
> be laughed out."
>
> However, I think it would be possible to recreate any black and white logo
> in POV-Ray (no guarantee). But it will be hard work, therefore the logo
> artists don't have to mess with it themselves.
>
> > The competition should be both for simplicity
> > and style, both in the image and in the code.
>
> I'd say simplicity and style in the image only. Some simple and stylistic
> logos might require complicated coding (if made with POV-Ray at all).
>
> I know that several of the logos in the old competition were not made with
> POV-Ray, and that includes some of the most successful of them IIRC. So
> generally I am against, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.
>
> 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 Hénon wrote:
> Fabien Hénon
>
> Now that I think of it, may be that I should post this in the general NG
This is the .general NG... :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Hénon" <ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote :
>
> It would be an impossible task to show all the possibilities of POV in a
single
> LOGO.
That is not the task. I don't have the ability to show all the
possibilities of POV no matter what I do. The task is to make a nice thing
that can be use to represent POVRay. If that is not within my talents, I am
sure it is within the talents of some on this NG.
> In the 2D image case, it would be too limiting to use only POV.
> POV is a great renderer, but how many of us only use it to create a scene.
I do. Not that that means anything, because the task is not to make a
scene, but only a nice -thing- of some description that can be used to
represent POVRay. If that is not within the possibilities of POVray then
something is wrong. That would mean that POVRay is so simplistic that
perhaps I -could- show all of it's possibilities in a single Logo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> : why logos(!) should have been
> : created with povray?
I was quoting somebody else, but never mind.
> What does it tell about a rendering
> program the fact that even its logo
> is not possible to make with it?
That the rendering program is made for rendering 3D graphics with, but not
specifically 2D logos?
I personally create all my logos in POV-Ray, but that doesn't mean I think
everybody else should too.
I actually tried recreating vaihtoehto's logo in POV-Ray using mainly a
prism object but it was extremely difficult to get it just right. That is
probably much easier in a program made for the purpose of 2D graphics.
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:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > If the logo had to be made in POV-Ray
> > it would be limiting.
>
> Well, the thing is that POV has a
> reputation of being a text driven,
> platform independent program. If the
> logo was an image, to insert it in a
> scene, you would need the image.
Some people might want to put the logo of POV-Ray in their image, but I
don't know how many. I wouldn't. I also don't see users of other renderers
doing so.
Besides, what wrong with an image_map? You might want to over-sample it a
lot, and still the required image could be pretty small. And AFAIK there's
some platform-independent image-formats.
> As an object, it can be easily
> #included in any scene or completely
> rewritten into any form of intricacy
> for any use. Still, if a flat b/w
> image is needed, it can be made.
The user would have to make sure the logo faces towards the camera exactly,
that it doesn't cast a shadow, you might want to avoid having it affected by
media and other things, and it goes on and on like this. Some things are
done better after the image is rendered (like adding signatures and logos).
Another option would be to use image_maps, which would eliminate at least
some of the problems. But maybe you meant putting the logo in the image as
an integrated part of the scene? That would be even more difficult, and to
be honest, I think it would be very few people who would do that.
> True, there are some things that can
> be done more easily in a paint program
> than in POV-Ray, but who cares? The
> images I have seen so far would be
> -extremely- easy to make in POV-Ray,
> but they weren't (in some cases).
Please make me an exact copy of logo 12! I had problems with it myself...
No, never mind. Just the fact that I couldn't make it myself shows that it
isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't think it is easy at all...
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:
> If that is not within the possibilities
> of POVray then something is wrong. That
> would mean that POVRay is so simplistic
> that perhaps I -could- show all of it's
> possibilities in a single Logo.
POV-Ray is made to create 3D graphics, not 2D graphics. I think logo 12 from
the old competition is simple and have some nice qualities, but it is rather
complicated to reproduce exact in POV-Ray. I think the main reason that
POV-Ray is not that suitable to create 2D graphics is that it is text-based,
and that it is not real-time.
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:
> Please make me an exact copy of logo 12! I had problems with it myself...
> No, never mind. Just the fact that I couldn't make it myself shows that it
> isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't think it is easy at all...
Took me less than 5 min. to recreate it exactly, in POV-Ray. See .images.
--
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:
> Rune wrote:
> > Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
> > I had problems with it myself...
> > No, never mind. Just the fact that I
> > couldn't make it myself shows that it
> > isn't "-extremely- easy". I don't
> > think it is easy at all...
>
> Took me less than 5 min. to recreate it
> exactly, in POV-Ray. See .images.
It seems like you used image_map, material_map, height_field or something
similar.
If that is correct, you did not recreate the logo in POV-Ray.
I think that Bill DeWitt's point was that the logo should be made entirely
inside POV-Ray without use of pre-made images. Otherwise it wouldn't make
sense (to me anyway).
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oups ! Sometimes I switch so fast between the NG that my computer does not
manage to keep up ( grin...)
Sorry about that.
Fabien Hénon
Ken a écrit :
> Fabien Hénon wrote:
>
> > Fabien Hénon
> >
> > Now that I think of it, may be that I should post this in the general NG
>
> This is the .general NG... :)
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
>
Making an exact copy is much harder than making one to begin with. I
made one close enough, at least the birdwing part. It was easy. The rest
might take me an hour or so but I won't do it because I have better things
to do, but I hope you can see that it is not all that hard.
The hardest part is thinking up a logo, after that, POV-Ray should be
able to do it. I agree that it doesn't -have- to be the tool of choice for a
good logo, but it -can- be so why not?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > Please make me an exact copy of logo 12!
>
> I made one close enough, at least the
> birdwing part. It was easy.
Sorry, but what you think is close enough, I think is not close at all.
Vaihtoehto's logo paid great attention to the curves, thickness, and
balance. That is what made the logo so stylistic. All those details are lost
in your version which is a rough approximation. I am sure that Vaihtoehto
would agree. Sorry, but as I see it, your image has only confirmed what I
said.
> The rest might take me an hour or so but I
> won't do it because I have better things
> to do, but I hope you can see that it is
> not all that hard.
Sorry.
> The hardest part is thinking up a logo,
> after that, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
POV-Ray is intended to do 3D graphics, not 2D graphics. The competition is
about making a good logo. When you decide if a logo is good you look at the
end result; the creating process doesn't matter.
> I agree that it doesn't -have- to be the
> tool of choice for a good logo, but it
> -can- be so why not?
POV-Ray *can* make some good logos, but there's also some good logos it
*can't* make. We shouldn't discard any good logos. That's why.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> I've actually been trying to convert my
> logo from AI to POV using EPS2POV, through
> Chris Huff. We've yet to be successful.
> It doesn't seem to like the EPS that
> Illustrator outputs. :(
That is a shame. I don't have Illustrator, but I would presume that it keeps
the data of the points of the graphics in some way, and that you should be
able to subtract the data in some way. Heh, easy to say for me who don't
have the program, and isn't a programmer...
> We shouldn't fight over which program
> creates the logo, so long as it fits
> POV-Ray, and represents it as it deserves
> to be represented.
Exactly. :-)
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 :
>
> Sorry, but what you think is close enough, I think is not close at all.
>
Well what I meant is close enough to show that it could be done. In 5
min., by hand with only a switching of screens as a guide, and it is close
enough that most people would have recognized it. But if it had been done in
a spline in the first place, it would be -exactly- as hard to duplicate in a
spline. That is, not very hard.
But personally, I think that some of the ones I made that were less of
an exact match were in some regards a better looking symbol. I suppose that
even if I made a "better" one you would say that since I didn't do that
particular one, POVRay just can't do as good a job.
I think you have a fixed Idea and don't want to see anything else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > Sorry, but what you think is close
> > enough, I think is not close at all.
>
> Well what I meant is close enough to
> show that it could be done.
If some people think it is easier to do with another program, then why would
you force them to use POV-Ray?
> In 5 min., by hand with only a switching
> of screens as a guide, and it is close
> enough that most people would have
> recognized it. But if it had been done in
> a spline in the first place, it would be
> -exactly- as hard to duplicate in a spline.
> That is, not very hard.
POV-Ray is text-based, and it is not real-time. Therefore it may not be so
easy to duplicate a spline precisely in POV-Ray. I know that I had problems.
> But personally, I think that some of the
> ones I made that were less of an exact
> match were in some regards a better
> looking symbol. I suppose that even if I
> made a "better" one you would say that
> since I didn't do that particular one,
> POVRay just can't do as good a job.
Then you didn't read what I wrote:
> POV-Ray *can* make some good logos, but
> there's also some good logos it *can't*
> make. We shouldn't discard any good logos.
Also remember that I make all my logos in POV-Ray. It's not my own interest
I'm trying to protect.
> I think you have a fixed Idea and don't want to see anything else.
Hey now! *I* think we should accept logos no matter which program they are
made with, but *you* think we should accept logos made with POV-Ray only!
Judging from that I would say that *you* are the one who have a fixed idea!
But let's not make this something personal.
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 :
>
> Hey now! *I* think we should accept logos no matter which program they are
> made with, but *you* think we should accept logos made with POV-Ray only!
>
Actually I never said anything about what we shouldn't accept, I simply
gave my opinion about how I would like to see the Logo's submitted and the
competition judged.
I agree that anyone should be able to submit anything and take their
chances. But I feel I am within my rights to express my opinion about what
values I might then make my judgment upon, with hopes of encouraging others
to explore such values. I will certainly score higher a logo made in POV
with the code submitted.
About the same reason I would score a little lower on the IRTC Technical
value when someone uses a modeler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>POV-Ray is made to create 3D graphics, not 2D graphics. I think logo 12
from
>the old competition is simple and have some nice qualities, but it is
rather
>complicated to reproduce exact in POV-Ray. I think the main reason that
>POV-Ray is not that suitable to create 2D graphics is that it is
text-based,
>and that it is not real-time.
i agree (again :)..
i made that logo as a freehand vector drawing with some fixes afterwards..
drawing in realtime with pov-ray is (afaik) impossible..
painting oil-colours (which is *fun*, btw) is somewhat hard with pov-ray
too..
same applies to charcoal and watercolours and whatever..
but ray-tracing works fine, and i think that's the work pov-ray should be
used to.
instead of working like an bridge engineer with mathematics, i'd like to
work with intuition, no matter what tools i use.
and so i think it would have been impossible for me to create that logo in
pov-ray.
it propably could be re-created with pov-ray now it is done, but original
couldn't been.
i checked that "easy done 5 minutes pov spline" -version without ring (is
there more versions?), but it lacks that "impression".
i spent a lot more than five minutes when planning original, sketching it
and experimenting with it..
-alt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> I agree that anyone should be able to
> submit anything and take their chances.
I'm glad we agree that the logos may be made with any program(s).
> But I feel I am within my rights to
> express my opinion about what values
> I might then make my judgment upon,
> with hopes of encouraging others
> to explore such values.
Of course.
> I will certainly score higher a logo
> made in POV with the code submitted.
Here is my opinion: Since a logo is just a piece of graphics, the only thing
that makes a logo good or bad is it's appearance. Therefore I think we
should judge from the appearance only.
Because appearance is the only thing that matters, the code is irrelevant.
BTW: How will you judge logos which is made in POV-Ray, but where the code
isn't provided?
> About the same reason I would score a
> little lower on the IRTC Technical
> value when someone uses a modeler.
The IRTC is not just about praising good images. It is also about praising
skills.
But in the logo contest the only goal is to find the best logo for POV-Ray.
It is *not* about praising the skills required to make that logo.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems like most people think that the logo may be made with any program.
Unless I get objections to this, I will consider that a conclusion.
We can still argue if the logo *should* be made with POV-Ray, I just wanted
to be sure that we agree that it *may* be made with other programs, if the
logo designer wishes so.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why not accept every logo, either made with POV or not. We could always
convert the "winning(s)" logo(s) later. Should that conversion not be
practical, it would show that the logo creator was very right not to use POV
indeed. (Darn! My English is behaving strangely again.)
Povingly
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Why not accept every logo, either made
> with POV or not. We could always convert
> the "winning(s)" logo(s) later. Should
> that conversion not be practical, it
> would show that the logo creator was
> very right not to use POV indeed. (Darn!
> My English is behaving strangely again.)
I get your point and agree completely.
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 think that's a fair assumption to make. And another thing: if it comes
down to the reason that POV should be used is that the logo may then be
rendered in any size, then I think it is worth noting that any vector
graphics file may also be scaled up or down without loss. Not the case with
bitmaps, however. Just a point to keep in mind.
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Rune wrote in message...
> It seems like most people think that the logo may be made with any
program.
>
> Unless I get objections to this, I will consider that a conclusion.
>
> We can still argue if the logo *should* be made with POV-Ray, I just
wanted
> to be sure that we agree that it *may* be made with other programs, if the
> logo designer wishes so.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Rune
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ddombrow wrote:
>
> I think that's a fair assumption to make. And another thing: if it comes
> down to the reason that POV should be used is that the logo may then be
> rendered in any size, then I think it is worth noting that any vector
> graphics file may also be scaled up or down without loss. Not the case with
> bitmaps, however. Just a point to keep in mind.
Personally I think another good reason to use POV-Ray to create the
logo is so that it may be distrubted with the program. This way
anyone can use the logo "object" in one of their scenes if they wish
and could even customize it in any way they want. If the logo is
created in some high end vector graphics program then only the original
designer can modify it with any reasonable assurance of quality.
One thing that is universal about the people that visit these
groups and visit povray.org is that we all use POV-Ray. This means
anyone of us can render or modify the logo to suit our needs, use
it in our scenes, and create custom versions of it for our personal
web pages. If a non POV-Ray created logo is adopted then we are limited
in how it may be adapted to our personal needs. Rune argues uniformity
while I argue diversity.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This means
>anyone of us can render or modify the logo to suit our needs, use
>it in our scenes, and create custom versions of it for our personal
>web pages.
Then why don't we use each our own logo? An official logo that can be
modified by anybody? it's a non sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not as silly as an official POV logo not created with POV....
"Patrick Joyal" <pat### [at] cantel-camscom> wrote in message
news:3912cb3a$1@news.povray.org...
> Then why don't we use each our own logo? An official logo that can be
> modified by anybody? it's a non sense.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Microsoft logo could have been drawn on a Mac.
McDonald's arch is not made of hamburgers.
Pepsi logo is not liquid.
do you need any more example? If Pov need a logo, let's draw one,
but we don't even wanna know how it was made, as long as it represent
POV, damn it.
Tom Melly wrote in message <3912cf75@news.povray.org>...
>Not as silly as an official POV logo not created with POV....
>
>"Patrick Joyal" <pat### [at] cantel-camscom> wrote in message
>news:3912cb3a$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Then why don't we use each our own logo? An official logo that can be
>> modified by anybody? it's a non sense.
>>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Joyal wrote:
> Microsoft logo could have been drawn on a Mac.
> McDonald's arch is not made of hamburgers.
> Pepsi logo is not liquid.
If you have a close look at the packaging (or manuals) of various graphic
software, it's pretty common to read that at least some part of it was made
using the very programme it applies to, when relevant. Adobe manuals are
composed with Adobe software... It's good policy and good marketing.
Of course I'd rather have a good logo made without pov than a bad one made
with it. Anyway, it makes sense to have a pov-made pov logo. For instance,
it would be very cool if the first demo scene (the one which is renderered
automatically when one installs pov for the first time, at least in the
Windows version), was the logo itself.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Joyal" <pat### [at] cantel-camscom> wrote in message
news:3912e0d0$1@news.povray.org...
> Microsoft logo could have been drawn on a Mac.
You don't use the logo as an application....
> McDonald's arch is not made of hamburgers.
You don't eat the arches...
> Pepsi logo is not liquid.
and you don't drink the logo...
But you do LOOK at both POV produced images and the logo....
>
> do you need any more example? If Pov need a logo, let's draw one,
> but we don't even wanna know how it was made, as long as it represent
> POV, damn it.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I meant the pov team could use it in any size, I also assumed that
someone on the team would have access to this software. Perhaps this is not
the case.
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Ken wrote in message...
> Personally I think another good reason to use POV-Ray to create the
> logo is so that it may be distrubted with the program. This way
> anyone can use the logo "object" in one of their scenes if they wish
> and could even customize it in any way they want. If the logo is
> created in some high end vector graphics program then only the original
> designer can modify it with any reasonable assurance of quality.
> One thing that is universal about the people that visit these
> groups and visit povray.org is that we all use POV-Ray. This means
> anyone of us can render or modify the logo to suit our needs, use
> it in our scenes, and create custom versions of it for our personal
> web pages. If a non POV-Ray created logo is adopted then we are limited
> in how it may be adapted to our personal needs. Rune argues uniformity
> while I argue diversity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, if you recall what I said, Ken, the AI files I use can be saved to EPS
and converted to POV prisms (I just haven't had any success doing that yet).
This means that I can create the logo out of POV and supply it as a POV file
later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
what program does this? I might want to try it since I'm currently using
Freehand for mine.
--
Dan D.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>what program does this? I might want to try it since I'm currently using
>Freehand for mine.
It's called EPS2POV. It's a "Hypercard stack". I think it only runs on
Macintosh. I sent several files to Chris Huff to try to convert them, but
none worked. :/ If you get it to work, please let me know what version of
the format you used. OK? Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran a écrit :
> Patrick Joyal wrote:
>
> > Microsoft logo could have been drawn on a Mac.
> > McDonald's arch is not made of hamburgers.
> > Pepsi logo is not liquid.
>
> If you have a close look at the packaging (or manuals) of various graphic
> software, it's pretty common to read that at least some part of it was made
> using the very programme it applies to, when relevant. Adobe manuals are
> composed with Adobe software... It's good policy and good marketing.
Maybe, but Adobe only sells 2D programs, no renderers.
Lightwave 5.6 logo is certainly not rendered with the renderer.
The same goes for Maya. There might be other examples
>
> Of course I'd rather have a good logo made without pov than a bad one made
> with it. Anyway, it makes sense to have a pov-made pov logo. For instance,
> it would be very cool if the first demo scene (the one which is renderered
> automatically when one installs pov for the first time, at least in the
> Windows version), was the logo itself.
>
> G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
