 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sounds OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" <ben### [at] panama c-comnet> wrote in message
news:39232c7a@news.povray.org...
> Sounds OK.
>
See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
--
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 didn't read any of the messages thoroughly. :) I only read Rune's. I was
aknowledging what he wrote last.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>A 32x32 pixel black and white version. Shades of gray is allowed, but only
>for anti-aliasing. For the reason of keeping the sizes small I think 16
>shades of gray is enough. I personally hardly can tell the difference
>between 256 shades of gray and 16 shades of gray, when the shades of gray
is
>used only for anti-aliasing.
i agree.
>A 14400 pixel black and white version. This version must contain 14400
>pixels at most, but the logo-designers can decide for themselves if they
>want a 60x240, or 80x180, or 120x120 resolution, or something completely
>else. This is so no shapes of logos are favored. Shades of gray is allowed
>in the same way as in the previous version.
i agree.
>3 custom versions. For these 3 versions the size limit is 14400 pixels as
in
>the previous version, but any amount of colors may be used. These versions
>are supposed to show how interesting the logo can be presented, and how
>flexible it is. It is encouraged that the 3 versions are made as different
>as possible, to show flexibility.
would those 3 custom versions be obligatory?
>So, these 5 formats are my suggestion. What do you think of it?
nice :)
-alt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think the best way to determine the sizes and colors of the logos is to know
where and how they are going to be used.
Is the logo going to be used to start POV as an application ?
-> a 16 x 16 and a 32 x 32 colored icon is best suited. This one should display
only the symbol. There is no space for lettering.
The 16 x 16 is needed in windows to start the applications.
The 32 x 32 is the average size for icons on desktop ( Linux and windows). I
think Mac and Amiga users have about the same needs.
Is the logo be displayed on the POV-Ray Homepage ?
-> any full-color logo with about 128 x 128 pixels should do. But in this case,
it should be up to the 'logo designer' to decide how large the original size
should be and if the logo should be square or not. Any large image can be
downsized to about 128 x 128 and still be easily recognizable.
Is the logo meant to be used for Web pages ( ie : comparing render stats or
pictures between POV and BMRT, or links to tutorials or the POV Homepage) ?
-> a size between 32 and 64 pixels should do. There again, a webmaster can
easily downsize a 64 x 64 logo to 32 x 32. That's why I would stick to a 64 x 64
logo ( upsizing a 32 logo to 64 would ruin it).
Is the logo to be inserted in one corner of pictures as a 'made with POV'
scheme?
-> a black and white version of the 32 x 32 icon with the symbol should be fine.
A 32 x 32 logo may look large on some pictures but it can be downsized. And
there again, it's up to the designer to decide if it should be square or not.
To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
1° - a 32 x 32 pixels colored logo with only the symbol ( to be downsized to 16
to suit needs) [Application starter].
2° - a large size image of the logo ( above 320 x ? ) with full details,
colors and lettering,...and whatever you can think of for banners and the
homepage is POVadmin agrees. This is one to be downsized to about 128 pixels
[Banner and Homepage]
3° - a 64 x ? colored version with symbol and/or lettering. [Web-Page]
4° - a 32 x ? black & white version ['Made with POV' logo]
Tell me what you think, but my opinion is that we should know beforehand how the
logo is going to be used to know where we are going.
Fabien Hénon
Rune a écrit :
> After having found out the general qualities of the logos we can proceed and
> begin to discuss the technical requirements. That is mainly about
> resolutions.
>
> I suggest that each logo should on the voting page be presented in the
> following 5 formats:
>
> A 32x32 pixel black and white version. Shades of gray is allowed, but only
> for anti-aliasing. For the reason of keeping the sizes small I think 16
> shades of gray is enough. I personally hardly can tell the difference
> between 256 shades of gray and 16 shades of gray, when the shades of gray is
> used only for anti-aliasing.
>
> A 14400 pixel black and white version. This version must contain 14400
> pixels at most, but the logo-designers can decide for themselves if they
> want a 60x240, or 80x180, or 120x120 resolution, or something completely
> else. This is so no shapes of logos are favored. Shades of gray is allowed
> in the same way as in the previous version.
>
> 3 custom versions. For these 3 versions the size limit is 14400 pixels as in
> the previous version, but any amount of colors may be used. These versions
> are supposed to show how interesting the logo can be presented, and how
> flexible it is. It is encouraged that the 3 versions are made as different
> as possible, to show flexibility.
>
> So, these 5 formats are my suggestion. What do you think of it?
>
> BTW, the POV-Ray Logo Contest Page is updated:
> http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/logo/logo.html
>
> 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
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (5 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:39237CE0.775CA590@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
>
> I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
>
I am pretty sure TonyB was talking about my comments of May 3rd where I
suggested that the logo should be an object and must be submitted with
pov-code. But I agree, his comments were a -stinging- rebuttal of your
Left-Handed arguments of February.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"vaihtoehto" wrote:
> would those 3 custom versions be obligatory?
I guess not. They are meant to show how/if the logo can be made
interesting/fancy and in how flexible it is (a flexible logo can be
presented in many different ways).
I think it should be encouraged to make those custom versions, but that it
should be up to the logo designer if he/she wants to make 0, 1, 2, or 3 of
the custom versions. I would strongly suggest that at least one were made
though.
I also think that we could help each other making logo versions. Like if
person A makes a nice logo, but doesn't know how to make it "fancy", person
B be could make a fancy version of it. Person A and B then could agree to
use person B's work for one of the custom formats in the submission.
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:
> I think the best way to determine the sizes
> and colors of the logos is to know where and
> how they are going to be used.
I agree. I attempted to do that too.
However, I think that the formats submitted to the contest are previews or
examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
submitted ones after the contest. Therefore we don't need to worry about
scaling up or down the logos. We only should concentrate on presenting the
logos for the voters in a way so that they can imagine how the logos will
look in any resolution.
If we present the logos in a rather small resolution and a rather big
resolution, they can imagine by themselves how other resolutions will look.
If we also show a few "fancy" ways of presenting the logos, they can maybe
imagine for themselves how flexible the logo is, and how it could look when
presented in other fancy ways.
I think your suggestions are quite good, but I personally would prefer the
following:
1) 2 black and white formats (with anti-aliasing). One in 32x32. One in
120x120 or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats
should be identical, except for the size. They are required. [Application
starter], [Web-Page], ['Made with POV' logo].
(The reason I say [Application starter] and [Web-Page] is that some people
may prefer the black and white version instead of the color one.)
2) 2 color formats. Plain colors and gradients are allowed, but not
"effects" such as shading or reflection etc. . One in 32x32. One in 120x120
or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats should be
identical, except for the size. They are optional. [Application starter],
[Web-Page], [Banner and Homepage].
(The reason I say [Banner and Homepage] is that some people may prefer the
plain color version instead of the "fancy" ones.)
3) 3 custom (or "fancy") formats. All effects are allowed. 2 of them are in
180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels. One of them is in 360x360
or any resolution with max 129600 pixels. These three formats can be
completely different from each other. They are optional. [Web-Page], [Banner
and Homepage], [splash-screen], [wallpaper], [more...].
I think almost every possible use is covered in by these formats, when you
keep in mind that they are previews only.
What do 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:
> "Ken" wrote:
> > Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions
> > > are the best... 8-)
> >
> > I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
>
> I am pretty sure TonyB was talking about my
> comments of May 3rd where I suggested that
> the logo should be an object and must be
> submitted with pov-code. But I agree, his
> comments were a -stinging- rebuttal of your
> Left-Handed arguments of February.
I'm completely lost now.
Comments of May? Arguments of February? Stinging rebuttal?
I'm not sure what you're referring to; I thought we were discussing things
in *this* thread only.
I'm not sure what your point is either, and I would appreciate if you
explained it.
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:
> Sounds OK.
What I wrote sounds OK?
OK, thanks! :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions are the best... 8-)
>
> I don't think Rune likes mine however :(
I'm not sure what suggestions of yours you are referring to.
Anyway, it doesn't matter so much what I think. I try to look at what the
majority thinks and make my decisions accordingly. I can only judge from the
responses I get, though. That's why I always encourage people to reply if
they have any opinion 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> I don't see why the logos should be compared
> at all. Each should be evaluated for its
> individual merits and for no other reason.
> I hate conformity !
A good logo has certain qualities, and it is in our interest to make those
qualities (or lack thereof) visible to the voter. We should in the
submission formats present the logos in some of the same ways as we expect
them to be presented when they're going to be used for real.
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 Thu, 18 May 2000 13:40:20 +0200 Fabien Hénon
<ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
Hi, Fabien. Could you please post in plain text only? Some visitors,
such as myself, use newsreaders that do not decode HTML so it's sort of
redundant on our space-limited server to post both formats.
Thank you for your participation.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
> submitted ones after the contest.
Assuming the logo was created with POV-Ray and not in some graphics
program like photoshop. In which case the size of the submitted logo
becomes very important. Most images lose quality when being resized
in a graphic program.
--
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:
>
> > examples only. We can always render the
> > logo in other resolutions than the
> > submitted ones after the contest.
>
> Assuming the logo was created with POV-Ray
> and not in some graphics program like
> photoshop. In which case the size of the
> submitted logo becomes very important.
> Most images lose quality when being resized
> in a graphic program.
I'm pretty sure that at least the black and white version of a logo is
always recreational, if not in POV-Ray, then at least in a vector based 2D
graphics program. I think the color version of a logo will be too. The
"fancy" versions will probably not be easy to recreate in other programs,
but then, the "fancy" version are only examples. They are not meant to be
"official" like the black and white version and the color version is.
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 :
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to; I thought we were discussing things
> in *this* thread only.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is either, and I would appreciate if you
> explained it.
I was referring to the phenomena that you referred to in your reply to
TonyB's post.
> What I wrote sounds OK?
You think he was talking about what you wrote, I think he was talking
about what I wrote, Ken thinks whatever 'oh's and 'one's such a construct
thinks in the silicone lattice of his mindchips... anyway, TonyB should
quote a little bit of the post he is responding to so these sort of
conversations don't happen again..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oups, sorry for the trouble.
What you meant is that the post was posted twice and that only one was
readable by your newsreader ?
Fabien Hénon
Alan Kong a écrit :
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 13:40:20 +0200 Fabien Hénon
> <ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>
> >To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
>
> Hi, Fabien. Could you please post in plain text only? Some visitors,
> such as myself, use newsreaders that do not decode HTML so it's sort of
> redundant on our space-limited server to post both formats.
>
> Thank you for your participation.
>
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Hénon wrote:
>
> Oups, sorry for the trouble.
>
> What you meant is that the post was posted twice and that only one was
> readable by your newsreader ?
No, he meant that you have your news program is set up to post in
HTML format rather than plain text. This was obvious by the bold
fonts used in your message. Not all news readers are capable of
decoding HTML posts automatically and it makes them difficult to
read. HTML posts also comsume more space on the news server and
space on this news server is not unlimited like it is on USENET
or other corporate sponsored news servers.
--
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. I attempted to do that too.
>
> However, I think that the formats submitted to the contest are previews or
> examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
> submitted ones after the contest. Therefore we don't need to worry about
> scaling up or down the logos. We only should concentrate on presenting the
> logos for the voters in a way so that they can imagine how the logos will
> look in any resolution.
>
Therefore, we should have only two formats :
- A small one, with only the symbol (or whatever representing POV) - 32 and 16
- A large one with full details and colors - 120 pixels and more
But that would be too restrictive
>
> I think your suggestions are quite good, but I personally would prefer the
> following:
>
> 1) 2 black and white formats (with anti-aliasing). One in 32x32. One in
> 120x120 or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats
> should be identical, except for the size. They are required. [Application
> starter], [Web-Page], ['Made with POV' logo].
>
The problem is that there is a huge gap between a 120 x 120 logo and a 32 x 32
one.
I don't think that these two should be identical.
The 120 pixel logo ( if too detailed or cluttered ) would be unrecognizable
when downsized to 32 or even to 16.
Besides, if you decide to make the 120 logo simple enough to be easily downsized
to 16 pixel, it is very likely to dull at 120.
>
> (The reason I say [Application starter] and [Web-Page] is that some people
> may prefer the black and white version instead of the color one.)
>
> 2) 2 color formats. Plain colors and gradients are allowed, but not
> "effects" such as shading or reflection etc. . One in 32x32. One in 120x120
> or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats should be
> identical, except for the size. They are optional. [Application starter],
> [Web-Page], [Banner and Homepage].
>
Same as above.
The difference between the format is too large.
I think it is a mistake to want a 120 x 120 and a 32 x 32 ( or 16) logo to look
identical.
These two formats do not serve the same purpose and not are meant for the same
things.
Besides, I think it's too restrictive not to allow shadings and reflections in a
120 x 120 picture.
We should also limit ourselves to formats. We can discuss about how large the
pictures should be, but not about what is inside them. It will hamper creation.
It's up to the designer to decide what (s)he is going to do inside the picture.
If the logo is not easily readable because there are too many effects for the
format, then he will remove them.
>
> (The reason I say [Banner and Homepage] is that some people may prefer the
> plain color version instead of the "fancy" ones.)
>
> 3) 3 custom (or "fancy") formats. All effects are allowed. 2 of them are in
> 180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels. One of them is in 360x360
> or any resolution with max 129600 pixels. These three formats can be
> completely different from each other. They are optional. [Web-Page], [Banner
> and Homepage], [splash-screen], [wallpaper], [more...].
>
Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not think of.
But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in 360 x 360. And why in square format.
Square format is required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.
Fabien Hénon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, I will repost it in plain text then ( when I read 'redudant' I
understood twice)
Too bad, using bold and italic was very useful.
> No, he meant that you have your news program is set up to post in
> HTML format rather than plain text. This was obvious by the bold
> fonts used in your message. Not all news readers are capable of
> decoding HTML posts automatically and it makes them difficult to
> read. HTML posts also comsume more space on the news server and
> space on this news server is not unlimited like it is on USENET
> or other corporate sponsored news servers.
>
I think the best way to determine the sizes and colors of the logos is to
know where and how they
are going to be used.
Is the logo going to be used to start POV as an application ?
-> a 16 x 16 and a 32 x 32 colored icon is best suited. This one should
display only the symbol.
There is no space for lettering.
The 16 x 16 is needed in windows to start the applications.
The 32 x 32 is the average size for icons on desktop ( Linux and windows). I
think Mac and Amiga
users have about the same needs.
Is the logo be displayed on the POV-Ray Homepage ?
-> any full-color logo with about 128 x 128 pixels should do. But in this
case, it should be up to the
'logo designer' to decide how large the original size should be and if the
logo should be square or
not. Any large image can be downsized to about 128 x 128 and still be easily
recognizable.
Is the logo meant to be used for Web pages ( ie : comparing render stats or
pictures between
POV and BMRT, or links to tutorials or the POV Homepage) ?
-> a size between 32 and 64 pixels should do. There again, a webmaster can
easily downsize a
64 x 64 logo to 32 x 32. That's why I would stick to a 64 x 64 logo (
upsizing a 32 logo to 64 would
ruin it).
Is the logo to be inserted in one corner of pictures as a 'made with POV'
scheme?
-> a black and white version of the 32 x 32 icon with the symbol should be
fine. A 32 x 32 logo may
look large on some pictures but it can be downsized. And there again, it's
up to the designer to
decide if it should be square or not.
To sum up, I think the following formats for the 'contest' should be :
1° - a 32 x 32 pixels colored logo with only the symbol ( to be downsized
to 16 to suit needs)
[Application starter].
2° - a large size image of the logo ( above 320 x ? ) with full details,
colors and lettering,...and
whatever you can think of for banners and the homepage is POVadmin agrees.
This is one to be
downsized to about 128 pixels [Banner and Homepage]
3° - a 64 x ? colored version with symbol and/or lettering. [Web-Page]
4° - a 32 x ? black & white version ['Made with POV' logo]
Tell me what you think, but my opinion is that we should know beforehand how
the logo is going to
be used to know where we are going.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> You think he was talking about what you wrote,
> I think he was talking about what I wrote
No, I read all the posts in the thread, so I saw TonyB's message where he
made it clear that he was referring to my message.
"TonyB" wrote:
> Sounds OK.
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> See Rune? TonyB thinks -my- suggestions
> are the best... 8-)
"TonyB" wrote:
> I didn't read any of the messages
> thoroughly. :) I only read Rune's. I was
> aknowledging what he wrote last.
So there you go. What confused me was that your wrote your message of 13:54
*after* TonyB had made clear what he meant.
> Ken thinks whatever 'oh's and 'one's such
> a construct thinks in the silicone lattice
> of his mindchips... anyway, TonyB should
> quote a little bit of the post he is
> responding to so these sort of
> conversations don't happen again..
Yes, I too think that would be best. But at least he quickly corrected it!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's why the larger the better. A 32 x 32 logo can easily be turned into a 16,
and a 320 into a 128 or 64.
Fabien Hénon
Ken a écrit :
> Rune wrote:
>
> > examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
> > submitted ones after the contest.
>
> Assuming the logo was created with POV-Ray and not in some graphics
> program like photoshop. In which case the size of the submitted logo
> becomes very important. Most images lose quality when being resized
> in a graphic program.
>
> --
> 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 in message
news:39247038@news.povray.org...
>
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > You think he was talking about what you wrote,
> > I think he was talking about what I wrote
>
> No, I read all the posts in the thread, so I saw TonyB's message where he
> made it clear that he was referring to my message.
>
It's a -JOKE-! I know you were not really confused, I was just
pretending that we were all confused to make a point. (Man I hate explaining
humor)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Hénon" wrote:
> Therefore, we should have only two formats :
> - A small one, with only the symbol (or
> whatever representing POV) - 32 and 16
> - A large one with full details and colors -
> 120 pixels and more
>
> But that would be too restrictive
Yes, it wouldn't cover so many possible uses.
> > 1) 2 black and white formats (with anti-
> > aliasing). One in 32x32. One in 120x120 or
> > any other resolution with max 14400 pixels.
> > These two formats should be identical,
> > except for the size. They are required.
> > [Application starter], [Web-Page], ['Made
> > with POV' logo].
>
> The problem is that there is a huge gap
> between a 120 x 120 logo and a 32 x 32 one.
When they are identical (and *only* when they are identical) people can
imagine for themselves how the resolutions in between will look.
> I don't think that these two should be
> identical. The 120 pixel logo ( if too
> detailed or cluttered ) would be
> unrecognizable when downsized to 32 or even
> to 16.
The black and white format, which is the one we're talking about now, should
be very simple. Therefore it is recognizable even in 32x32.
> Besides, if you decide to make the 120 logo
> simple enough to be easily downsized to 16
> pixel, it is very likely to dull at 120.
So you mean that simple = dull? I don't think so. The reason I think the
simple b&w version should be presented in a large resolution too, is that I
think the voters should be able to see what the simple b&w version looks
like when scaled up.
The large format of the simple version of the logo will not have more
details, but it will be much sharper, and be more clear, and less blurred of
anti-aliasing.
I can understand that you think there should be more details in the larger
versions, but that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.
> > 2) 2 color formats. Plain colors and
> > gradients are allowed, but not "effects"
> > such as shading or reflection etc. . One
> > in 32x32. One in 120x120 or any other
> > resolution with max 14400 pixels. These
> > two formats should be identical, except
> > for the size. They are optional.
> > [Application starter], [Web-Page],
> > [Banner and Homepage].
>
> Same as above.
> The difference between the format is too
> large.
> I think it is a mistake to want a 120 x 120
> and a 32 x 32 ( or 16) logo to look identical.
Many people thinks that simplicity is nice. I personally thinks that a nice
and simple logo will remain beautiful no matter how large it is made. The
simple version should be clearly visible in 32x32, but the voter should also
be able to see the simple version in a larger resolution.
> These two formats do not serve the same
> purpose and not are meant for the same
> things.
You are presuming that people always wants more details in larger
resolutions. I say that people may also want to see the simple version in a
large resolution. The large format of the simple logo will be much sharper,
etc.
> Besides, I think it's too restrictive not
> to allow shadings and reflections in a
> 120 x 120 picture.
Again, it's to show the simple versions in large formats. You can use
shading and reflection too, but that should be in the custom/fancy formats.
That's what the custom/fancy formats were made for after all.
> We should also limit ourselves to formats.
> We can discuss about how large the pictures
> should be, but not about what is inside them.
> It will hamper creation.
Logos should look nice *both* when they are limited by formats *and* when
they are not limited. Therefore I have suggested *both* limited formats
*and* free/custom/fancy formats.
You are suggesting that we should have free formats *only*, but then we
couldn't see if the logos looked nice in limited formats. When the logo is
going to be used for real, it will often be presented in limited formats.
Therefore we should have limited formats here too *as* *well* as the free
formats.
> It's up to the designer to decide what (s)he
> is going to do inside the picture. If the
> logo is not easily readable because there
> are too many effects for the format, then he
> will remove them.
See my reply above.
> Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not
> think of. But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in
> 360 x 360.
With 3 different free formats the logo creator can really show how flexible
the logo is. Some people have requested at least one large format, but I
think 3 large formats would be too big in size, so I let the creator choose
his favorite one or most detailed one for the large version.
> And why in square format. Square format is
> required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
> Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.
I said "180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels". That mean that it
doesn't have to be square. 180x180, 150x216, 120x270, 90x360, and many more
resolutions will all give max 32400 pixels.
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:
> Rune a écrit :
> > The "fancy" versions will probably not be
> > easy to recreate in other programs, but then,
> > the "fancy" version are only examples. They
> > are not meant to be "official" like the black
> > and white version and the color version is.
>
> That's why the large the better ( a 32 x 32 can
> easily be turned into a 16) and a 320 into a 128.
Say what, the logo creator make a very big image and saves it on his disc.
He then submits a smaller version of it for the contest. Now we can
concentrate on the *preview* formats, because we can always get the bigger
version from the logo creator. Problem solved.
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:
> It's a -JOKE-! I know you were not really confused, I was just
> pretending that we were all confused to make a point. (Man I hate explaining
> humor)
Nay, nay I say ! That's no nose like you think it be. That thar is a
blue cucumber.
--
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" wrote:
> That's why the larger the better. A 32 x 32
> logo can easily be turned into a 16, and a
> 320 into a 128 or 64.
You said just the same thing in another message. I replied to that other
message.
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:
> > "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > > You think he was talking about what you wrote,
> > > I think he was talking about what I wrote
> >
> > No, I read all the posts in the thread, so I saw
> > TonyB's message where he made it clear that he
> > was referring to my message.
>
> It's a -JOKE-! I know you were not really
> confused, I was just pretending that we were all
> confused to make a point. (Man I hate explaining
> humor)
At first I thought it was a joke, but then TonyB didn't seem to get it (or
maybe he wasn't sure either) and Ken neither, and then you kept on yourself.
That *really* confused me... hehe... :-)
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 Fri, 19 May 2000 00:27:17 +0200 Fabien Hénon
<ffj### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>Ok, I will repost it in plain text then ( when I read 'redudant' I
>understood twice)
>Too bad, using bold and italic was very usefu
<sighing, but with an understanding smile> Sorry to both Fabien and
Ken for any misunderstanding. Yes, I did mean that the text was posted
twice in the same message - the way it appeared in my newsreader was the
plain text first, with what appears to be an attachment of HTML, or HTML
within the body of the message.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> and then you kept on yourself.
>
Never let it be said that Bill DeWitt let a bad joke die a simple death
without beating it into the dirt two or three times.
--
I get paid to do -anything- while connected to the internet.
Please use my referral id to find out more
http://www.getpaid4.com/?billdewitt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39230271@news.povray.org...
> I don't agree. I think the voters should be able to compare the logos on
the
> same basis.
(All this mail is about personal preferences - I am not trying to impose my
point of view, just explaining it. Read all this as IMHO)
I agree. But I'd prefer _guidelines_ to rules. If an entrant do not want to
make his logo easily comparable, it would be his responsibility/decision.
Hence he can not protest were he penalised for doing so. And I think voters
are intelligent and educated enough to compare slightly different formats.
> They also should be able to see how the logo looks in certain
> different formats so they can see how flexible it is and how it looks when
> presented very simple.
Logo representation and presentation are parts of the same work. It is
author responsibility to demonstrate his logo's flexibility.
> There might be more possible fuss/protestations from the voters when they
> can't compare the logos properly... ;-)
So, they can express they protest when rating the offending logo(s).
> > Perhaps a rule about a max number of
> > logo(s) by the same person.
>
> Why should we have a max number of different logos per person? (We *are*
> talking about *different* logos, right?) What purpose would it serve other
> than suppressing creativity? I think it is in our interest to get as many
> logos as possible.
My answer once again boils down to authors' responsibility.
I suppose we do not want to see 50+ slight variations on the same logo. The
author has to make decisions to get a reasonable ratio of logos/concept. If
he wants help/advice from his peers, he can - eg in these groups, like
TonyB - but the competition is not the place to get such advice.
I also think that a logo is much work. It is often better to spend his time
furthering a low number of logo/concept to take them as far as one can then
spending all his time brain-storming to get as many logo/concept as possible
but perfecting none of them. Once again, if one want advice on which
logo/concept to develop, one can ask, but I do not think this should be the
purpose of the competition.
I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would be reasonable.
It should be (imho) the author responsibility to choose the best between his
tries, as this is (imho) also part of the design process.
> There maybe should be some restrictions, but they should
> not be based on who has made the logos.
I think a restriction on the total number of logos, independent of a
number/author limit, can be a much worse creativity restriction (the more so
if the firsts submitters each post numerous variations).
I hope this clarifies my opinion and I'd be glad to further any explanation
if necessary.
Greetings
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > I think the voters should be able to compare
> > the logos on the same basis.
>
> (All this mail is about personal preferences -
> I am not trying to impose my point of view,
> just explaining it. Read all this as IMHO)
Same here.
> I agree. But I'd prefer _guidelines_ to rules.
> If an entrant do not want to make his logo
> easily comparable, it would be his
> responsibility/decision. Hence he can not
> protest were he penalised for doing so. And I
> think voters are intelligent and educated
> enough to compare slightly different formats.
I'm afraid many voters will judge upon what they see.
I'm not sure they will judge upon what they *don't* see.
If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really fancy ways only, and
he doesn't present his logo in the limited formats, then I think some voters
will judge upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a high score
because they like what they see, but that is not so good if the logo
actually wouldn't have looked nice in simple formats.
Therefore I think there should be some rules about in which formats the
logos should be submitted. To help the voters.
> > There might be more possible fuss/
> > protestations from the voters when they
> > can't compare the logos properly... ;-)
>
> So, they can express they protest when rating
> the offending logo(s).
I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm questioning the voters
ability to judge upon what they *don't* see. I'm not sure everybody will
think that far. Therefore I think we should make sure that the voters see
what they need to see.
> I suppose we do not want to see 50+ slight
> variations on the same logo.
I agree, but I wouldn't mind seeing 50+ completely different logos from the
same person.
> The author has to make decisions to get a
> reasonable ratio of logos/concept. If he
> wants help/advice from his peers, he can -
> eg in these groups, like TonyB - but the
> competition is not the place to get such
> advice.
I agree.
> I also think that a logo is much work.
> It is often better to spend his time
> furthering a low number of logo/concept to
> take them as far as one can then spending
> all his time brain-storming to get as many
> logo/concept as possible but perfecting
> none of them.
We can not say for sure that it isn't possible for one person to make a lot
of different logos that are all very good. Similar, there can also be a
person who makes one logo only, and it can still be a poor logo.
I think we should have some kind of limit, but the limit should be based on
quality, not on who has made the logo.
For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest if
there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will support
has no chance of winning anyway.
> I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would
> be reasonable.
People are different. Some people might be able to make more than 5 good
logos.
If we follow my suggestion the amount of logos will be limited in a natural
and fair way.
> It should be (imho) the author
> responsibility to choose the best between
> his tries, as this is (imho) also part of
> the design process.
Here's an example: Person A makes 7 really good logos. Person B makes one
poor logo.
Why should some of the good logos be excluded in favor of the poor one?
> > There maybe should be some restrictions,
> > but they should not be based on who has
> > made the logos.
>
> I think a restriction on the total number
> of logos, independent of a number/author
> limit, can be a much worse creativity
> restriction (the more so if the firsts
> submitters each post numerous variations).
I did certainly not mean that the order of the submissions was the way to
make the restriction!
> I hope this clarifies my opinion and I'd
> be glad to further any explanation if
> necessary.
What do you think of my suggestion?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> Just allow gradients but not "3D effects"
> like shading, reflection, and so on. I don't
> see any real reason to disallow gradients in
> the color version...
OK then. See my new suggestion in the reply to Fabien Hénon.
> I just think something bigger than 120*120
> is needed, at least for one image.
OK then. See my new suggestion in the reply to Fabien Hénon.
:-)
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 <3924ec5b@news.povray.org>, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I also think that a logo is much work. It is often better to spend
> his time furthering a low number of logo/concept to take them as far
> as one can then spending all his time brain-storming to get as many
> logo/concept as possible but perfecting none of them. Once again, if
> one want advice on which logo/concept to develop, one can ask, but I
> do not think this should be the purpose of the competition.
>
> I think a limit of 3 to 5 logo/author would be reasonable.
>
> It should be (imho) the author responsibility to choose the best
> between his tries, as this is (imho) also part of the design process.
I really think the author should decide how many he is capable of. And
his idea of his best logos might be unpopular(see my version of the eye
logo as an example. :-) ), or the majority of people could favor one
that he discarded.
However, dozens of minor variations of the same logo are another matter.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune a écrit :
I see where we disagree.
You suggest a large version of the small logo and only the symbol/logo for
people to get a better idea.
-> Two pictures ( a 16-32 and a 120 ) are needed.
I suggest two different pictures
-> One with only the symbol ( 16-32 format)
-> One with the logo and a few more details ( 120 format and above).
When I mean with details, I mean with the symbol, the letters and effects
>
> The large format of the simple version of the logo will not have more
> details, but it will be much sharper, and be more clear, and less blurred of
> anti-aliasing.
>
> I can understand that you think there should be more details in the larger
> versions, but that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.
Well,in that case the 120 format ( the one used for the [ Banner-Homepage] will
look pretty empty ( with only the logo in it).
>
> Again, it's to show the simple versions in large formats. You can use
> shading and reflection too, but that should be in the custom/fancy formats.
> That's what the custom/fancy formats were made for after all.
To sum up, you suggest only two types of format
1° A small logo displayed on its normal size ( 16-32) and on a larger size (at
120 )
2° A fancy format ( at 180 or so)
That still leaves a gap between these two formats.
It might be better to propose a more detailed one at 128 and leave the 180 or
(much) more for the splash-screen.
>
> You are suggesting that we should have free formats *only*
No, I just meant that the logo-designer ( or whatever you call him her) should
decide whether to use effects or not.
I agree that there should be a kind of standards ( in sizes) just to compare
the logos, but in no way we should tell whether to use effects, gradients, plain
colors or not.
>
> With 3 different free formats the logo creator can really show how flexible
> the logo is. Some people have requested at least one large format, but I
> think 3 large formats would be too big in size, so I let the creator choose
> his favorite one or most detailed one for the large version.
>
> > And why in square format. Square format is
> > required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
> > Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.
>
> I said "180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels". That mean that it
> doesn't have to be square. 180x180, 150x216, 120x270, 90x360, and many more
> resolutions will all give max 32400 pixels.
>
Fabien Hénon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Hénon" wrote:
> I see where we disagree.
> You suggest a large version of the small logo
> and only the symbol/logo for people to get a
> better idea.
Yes, you could put it that way.
> I suggest two different pictures
> -> One with only the symbol ( 16-32 format)
I suggest that too. Only I think it should be showed in a larger version
too, so it is more sharp and less blurred.
> -> One with the logo and a few more details
> ( 120 format and above).
> When I mean with details, I mean with the
> symbol, the letters and effects
I suggest that too. I call it the custom format.
> > I can understand that you think there should
> > be more details in the larger versions, but
> > that is what the custom / fancy formats are for.
>
> Well,in that case the 120 format ( the one used
> for the [ Banner-Homepage] will look pretty empty
> ( with only the logo in it).
The logo creator can put anything in the custom formats. There's 3 of them,
so one can be simple with a little detail, one can be more interesting,
while the third can be really fancy. It's up to the logo creator.
> > Again, it's to show the simple versions in
> > large formats. You can use shading and
> > reflection too, but that should be in the
> > custom/fancy formats. That's what the
> > custom/fancy formats were made for after all.
>
> To sum up, you suggest only two types of format
> 1° A small logo displayed on its normal size
> ( 16-32) and on a larger size (at 120 )
> 2° A fancy format ( at 180 or so)
There's 3 of the fancy formats, and "custom format" is a better word
actually, because they don't *have* to be fancy.
Also, you forgot my color format suggestion.
> That still leaves a gap between these two formats.
Why? Anything can be put into the custom formats.
> It might be better to propose a more
> detailed one at 128 and leave the 180 or (much)
> more for the splash-screen.
There's 3 of the custom formats. The logo creator could choose to use one
for a "more detailed one" and another for a "splash-screen one".
> > You are suggesting that we should have free
> > formats *only*
>
> No, I just meant that the logo-designer ( or
> whatever you call him her) should decide
> whether to use effects or not.
That's what I call free format (or custom format).
> I agree that there should be a kind of standards
> ( in sizes) just to compare the logos, but in no
> way we should tell whether to use effects,
> gradients, plain colors or not.
When the logo is going to be used for real, there will be some cases where a
black and white version is needed, or a simple color version is needed.
Therefore we should require such formats in the contest too. However, we
should *also* have custom formats as I suggested.
Remember that everything I write here is just my opinion!
I hope you will reply again and tell 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello again!
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:392533b3@news.povray.org...
> I'm afraid many voters will judge upon what they see.
> I'm not sure they will judge upon what they *don't* see.
>
> If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really fancy ways only,
and
> he doesn't present his logo in the limited formats, then I think some
voters
> will judge upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a high
score
> because they like what they see, but that is not so good if the logo
> actually wouldn't have looked nice in simple formats.
>
> Therefore I think there should be some rules about in which formats the
> logos should be submitted. To help the voters.
[SNIP]
>
> I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm questioning the voters
> ability to judge upon what they *don't* see. I'm not sure everybody will
> think that far. Therefore I think we should make sure that the voters see
> what they need to see.
If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups, I am fairly
confident that they are capable of such thinking. I believe most other
Povray users can too. Nonetheless, I understand your concern - my way of
dealing with it would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
(Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)
> We can not say for sure that it isn't possible for one person to make a
lot
> of different logos that are all very good. Similar, there can also be a
> person who makes one logo only, and it can still be a poor logo.
I think a person capable of designing many different and excellent logo is
also capable to select the bests ones within his works. And that doing so
_is_ part of the design process. However this is my (current way of seeing
life/people?)/(philosophy?)/(paradigm?)/(vision?), not an established fact.
So: I agree, unreservedly.
> I think we should have some kind of limit, but the limit should be based
on
> quality, not on who has made the logo.
>
> For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest
if
> there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will support
> has no chance of winning anyway.
[SNIP]
>
> If we follow my suggestion the amount of logos will be limited in a
natural
> and fair way.
I never thought about such a system. I think it is a very good one.
> > I think a restriction on the total number
> > of logos, independent of a number/author
> > limit, can be a much worse creativity
> > restriction (the more so if the firsts
> > submitters each post numerous variations).
>
> I did certainly not mean that the order of the submissions was the way to
> make the restriction!
As I wrote, I never thought about such a system as yours. I inappropriately
assumed that you would limit the total number of logos. I do apologise for
implicitly putting such words in you mouth.
> What do you think of my suggestion?
Very good, I think.
I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and the collecting of support.
Last-minute entrants would have a hard time getting support. Could support
be given on drafts? (2) If anybody can give support, the rule will have no
real effect. Anybody can get 3 friends to give blindly such support - and
one can even set up fake net-identities to ive himself support. OTOH,
getting more then 3 "serious" (for example people from this ng) could be
hard... I have no solution to offer.
One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"(no
support). Possibly, successive logos could need a growing number of
support...
(Sorry for the late answer : I could not post this Friday, I had to wait for
this Monday morning - I only get access to the Internet at work).
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote > >
> > For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest
> if
> > there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
support
> > has no chance of winning anyway.
>
I preemptively give my support for -every- submission. Now they only
need two.
This seems to me to be just a method of pre-voting and would cast away
any people who prefer to send theirs in without previous critique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really
> > fancy ways only, and he doesn't present his logo in the
> > limited formats, then I think some voters will judge
> > upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a
> > high score because they like what they see, but that is
> > not so good if the logo actually wouldn't have looked
> > nice in simple formats.
> >
> > I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm
> > questioning the voters ability to judge upon what they
> > *don't* see.
>
> If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups,
> I am fairly confident that they are capable of such
> thinking.
If I see a color logo with lots of details and effects, I will not be able
to tell how it will look in a simple black and white version. Therefore I
would like to *see* the black and white version.
> I believe most other Povray users can too. Nonetheless,
> I understand your concern - my way of dealing with it
> would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
> (Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)
Hmm, would that be like saying to the voters, "When deciding if a logo is
good, try to imagine how it would look in just black and white (...)".
Why shouldn't we instead simply *show* them how it looks in black and white?
> > I think we should have some kind of limit,
> > but the limit should be based on quality,
> > not on who has made the logo.
> >
> > For example we could say that logos can only
> > be submitted to the contest if there's at
> > least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that
> > nobody will support has no chance of winning
> > anyway.
> >
> > What do you think of my suggestion?
>
> Very good, I think.
>
> I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and
> the collecting of support. Last-minute entrants
> would have a hard time getting support. Could
> support be given on drafts?
We could maybe have a period meant for collecting support.
> (2) If anybody can give support, the rule will
> have no real effect. Anybody can get 3 friends
> to give blindly such support - and one can even
> set up fake net-identities to ive himself support.
> OTOH, getting more then 3 "serious" (for example
> people from this ng) could be hard... I have no
> solution to offer.
I think those who allowed to vote in the contest are also those who can
support logos. That is, any POV-Ray user.
Furthermore, I actually meant that one person could give support for one
logo only. If not so, one person could just support all the logos. It may
greatly limit the number of logos that enter the competition, but those
logos that doesn't make it had no chance of winning anyway.
> One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"
> (no support). Possibly, successive logos could
> need a growing number of support...
I personally don't see what the reason for such a rule would be. It would
(again) be like telling people that it is preferred that each person make a
few logos only, and I don't see the reason for that. I think, let the voters
decide instead, either by using the "support method" or by not limit the
submissions 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:
> "Rune" wrote:
> For example we could say that logos can only be
> submitted to the contest if there's at least 3
> persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
> support has no chance of winning anyway.
>
> I preemptively give my support for -every-
> submission. Now they only need two.
Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.
> This seems to me to be just a method of
> pre-voting and would cast away any people who
> prefer to send theirs in without previous
> critique.
I personally wouldn't like to see 100+ logos on the voting page (for
bandwidth reasons mainly), so I thought we could "filter out" the logos that
has no chance of winning anyway. That way we could for example prevent one
person from submitting lots of different versions of the same logo, if some
of the versions are not popular at all anyway.
Maybe it would be better if each logo needed one supporter only, or maybe
it's not a good suggestion 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39295333@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > "Rune" wrote:
> > For example we could say that logos can only be
> > submitted to the contest if there's at least 3
> > persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
> > support has no chance of winning anyway.
> >
> > I preemptively give my support for -every-
> > submission. Now they only need two.
>
> Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.
No! Please!
This does exactly what you want to avoid : it limits the total number of
logo to 1/3 of the number of people willing to give their votes - so
probably to 1/3 of the number of people frequenting this ng, if one admits
they all have an interest in the logo contest. I think this is much more
restricting then what I proposed : number of logos limited by [3-5]*(number
of informed people), as opposed to (number of informed people)/3.
> I personally wouldn't like to see 100+ logos on the voting page (for
> bandwidth reasons mainly), so I thought we could "filter out" the logos
that
> has no chance of winning anyway. That way we could for example prevent one
> person from submitting lots of different versions of the same logo, if
some
> of the versions are not popular at all anyway.
er... if they are just minor variations of the same logo, most people would
support most variations. Hence, the author will have to choose himself
because of the support requirement. Which is exactly what I advocate.
> Maybe it would be better if each logo needed one supporter only,
I suppose an author cannot support himself. This still restrict the total
number of logos to (informed people)/2.
> or maybe
> it's not a good suggestion at all.
I think the idea is a good one, but that it would be much work to make a
workable implementation.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3929532c@news.povray.org...
> > If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups,
> > I am fairly confident that they are capable of such
> > thinking.
>
> If I see a color logo with lots of details and effects, I will not be able
> to tell how it will look in a simple black and white version. Therefore I
> would like to *see* the black and white version.
What can I say???
> > I believe most other Povray users can too. Nonetheless,
> > I understand your concern - my way of dealing with it
> > would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
> > (Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)
>
> Hmm, would that be like saying to the voters, "When deciding if a logo is
> good, try to imagine how it would look in just black and white (...)".
>
> Why shouldn't we instead simply *show* them how it looks in black and
white?
No, what I say is: if the author, who was toroughly informed, choosed to not
include a B/W version, was it a good choice? Was he able to show you things
that are, after viewing them, more important/difficult to see/visualise then
the B/W version? Or was he trying to impress you with effects and to mask
his logo's lack of substance?
Hence: author responsability.
> > I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and
> > the collecting of support. Last-minute entrants
> > would have a hard time getting support. Could
> > support be given on drafts?
>
> We could maybe have a period meant for collecting support.
I can see a designer not working on his logo if it is not already submitted.
If the "support" phase needs the logos to be submitted/locked, then it
really is a voting.
> > One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"
> > (no support). Possibly, successive logos could
> > need a growing number of support...
>
> I personally don't see what the reason for such a rule would be. It would
> (again) be like telling people that it is preferred that each person make
a
> few logos only, and I don't see the reason for that. I think, let the
voters
> decide instead, either by using the "support method" or by not limit the
> submissions at all.
I think any protocol limiting the total number of logos is telling peoples
that we prefer to see few logos. I proposed the "growing number of support,
starting at 0" rule to address a few shortcoming of the "3 supports" method,
such as less restricting the total number of logos, giving a chance to an
isolated author (with few chance of getting a support) or facilitating
last-minute entries.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.
>
That would limit us to (number of voters) / (number of required
"support" votes) total images. Not what we want I think. If this is
important enough to do it is important enough to allow any and all
submissions and let those who want to vote deal with the download issues.
Anything else is either severely restricting the number of submissions
or blatant pre-voting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, let's just drop the whole idea of restricting the number of logos. Let's
say it's up to the individual logo designers not to submit too many versions
of the same logo. I was not sure it was a good idea after all. It helped to
get some feedback!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:392ba4ba@news.povray.org...
>
> "Rune" wrote:
> > If I see a color logo with lots of details and
> > effects, I will not be able to tell how it will
> > look in a simple black and white version.
> > Therefore I would like to *see* the black and
> > white version.
>
> What can I say???
Take Chris Colefax's logo for example. I have some idea what it will look
like in black and white, but I can't tell for sure if it will look nice
before I have seen it.
> No, what I say is: if the author, who was toroughly
> informed, choosed to not include a B/W version, was
> it a good choice? Was he able to show you things
> that are, after viewing them, more important/difficult
> to see/visualise then the B/W version? Or was he
> trying to impress you with effects and to mask his
> logo's lack of substance?
>
> Hence: author responsability.
The point here is that there's a RULE saying the the logos must work in
black and white, and there's a reason that rule were made. Therefore the
voters should be able to see how the logo looks in black and white.
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 in message
news:39344179@news.povray.org...
> The point here is that there's a RULE saying the the logos must work in
> black and white, and there's a reason that rule were made. Therefore the
> voters should be able to see how the logo looks in black and white.
I agree completely. What I believe in is:
1) everybody knows the logo should work in B/W;
2) voters will vote accordingly (or not, if they do not agree with point 1);
3) author choose what they submit, including if they submit a b/w image and
knowing the potential consequences.
Hence authors who:
- do not agree with point 1,
or
- think they can use the avalaible space to show something they believe more
important,
can act accordingly. And let the voters judge - it _is_ their job. If a
voter think an author as mis-used the avalaible space, preferring to show
fancy FX rather then a logo, he can score this logo very low.
OTOH, if an author think the B/W version is important (as I think it is), he
will include it. If he is unsure, he will follow the guidelines and be on
the safe side. And I carry this line of reasonning to all formats: so I'd
only fix a total submission size, letting each author choose how he wants to
use it (why not its own html presentation page?).
Now, I do not pretend I am right or that you are wrong. It is only my
opinion: these are justs the rules I would use if I were to organise the
contest. Just my personnal taste.
I am glad you are back. I hope your HD was left undamaged.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > The point here is that there's a RULE saying the
> > the logos must work in black and white, and there's
> > a reason that rule were made. Therefore the voters
> > should be able to see how the logo looks in black
> > and white.
>
> I agree completely. What I believe in is:
> 1) everybody knows the logo should work in B/W;
> 2) voters will vote accordingly (or not, if they do
> not agree with point 1);
> 3) author choose what they submit, including if they
> submit a b/w image and knowing the potential
> consequences.
>
> Hence authors who:
>
> - do not agree with point 1,
But point 1 is a rule. Normally you have to follow rules even if you don't
agree with them.
> or
> - think they can use the avalaible space to show
> something they believe more important,
That would still be breaking a rule.
> can act accordingly.
That would be saying: "We have made some specific rules for this contest,
but it is ok not to follow them." That doesn't make sense I think.
> And let the voters judge - it _is_ their job.
The voters' job is to judge among the logos that follow the rules of the
contest.
> OTOH, if an author think the B/W version is important (as I think it is),
According to the rules the b/w version IS important.
> he will include it. If he is unsure, he will follow
> the guidelines and be on the safe side. And I carry
> this line of reasonning to all formats: so I'd only
> fix a total submission size, letting each author
> choose how he wants to use it (why not its own html
> presentation page?).
Because a good logo has certain qualities that can not be discussed (in my
opinion). We are only interested in potential GOOD logos (naturally), so all
logos should follow the certain requirements that a good logo follows.
> Now, I do not pretend I am right or that you are wrong.
> It is only my opinion: these are justs the rules I
> would use if I were to organise the contest. Just my
> personnal taste.
Same here. (I'm just discussing, I'm not in my role as organizer.)
> I am glad you are back.
Thanks! :-)
> I hope your HD was left undamaged.
Depends on your definition of "undamaged"...
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:
> The voters' job is to judge among the logos that follow the rules of the
> contest.
The voters job is to help determine which logo best represents POV-Ray.
The rules exist merely to refine the process of finding the best logo.
--
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:
>
> > The voters' job is to judge among the logos
> > that follow the rules of the contest.
>
> The voters job is to help determine which logo
> best represents POV-Ray.
>
> The rules exist merely to refine the process
> of finding the best logo.
I think yours and mine statement does not nessesarily contradict each other.
THE GOAL is to find THE LOGO that best represents POV-Ray.
At first we have all the logos.
Some of the logos does not have potential to be THE LOGO because they don't
follow the requirements (rules) that we (by voting in the newsgroup) have
fixed. Those logos are rejected.
The rest of the logos are those that follow the rules. These are the logos
that we vote about.
In theory the voters judge among all the logos, but in practice we can
filter some of the logos out before the voting, becase they don't follow the
fixed requirements.
However, since the people who make the logos will know the rules, they
probably won't make logos that don't follow the rules, and therefore we
probably won't have to reject any logos at all.
This is how I imagine things to be 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
