 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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.
Sounds fine. I suppose this is so that the logo can later become the icon as
well, right? I would like to suggest that if this is the case, that the icon
be permitted to be different from the larger resolution versions of the
actual logo. The icon can be just a small part of the larger concept, and
the real logo can include a specific font for the "POV-Ray" text, for
example.
>A 14400 pixel black and white version.
How did you decide on that number? Anyway, it sounds fine to me. This would
allow the author to show the complete logo, with all of its features.
>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.
Oh, OK. So what you're saying is that the official logo must be black and
white, and that there will be no official colors for it? I guess that's OK
by me, but maybe we could choose the best of the three presentations for
deciding on the best official colors?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <391ec750@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] iname com>
wrote:
> 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.
This sounds good.
> 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.
Why 14400? I personally would prefer 19200, so you could have 160*120.
> So, these 5 formats are my suggestion. What do you think of it?
I would suggest an optional 6th version, a "plain" color version. Some
logos have color schemes which are part of the logo, the Apple logo is
an example. It has a black and white version, but color versions always
have the same "official" color scheme, a rainbow of colors from
top(green) to bottom(blue) with yellow, red, and purple in the middle.
And maybe a larger resolution "fancy" version, like a splash screen. Not
necessarily the logo, but an image using it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" wrote:
> > A 32x32 pixel black and white version.
>
> Sounds fine.
Fine!
> I suppose this is so that the logo can
> later become the icon as well, right?
Partly, but also just to show how the logo looks in general when presented
in a small black and white resolution.
> I would like to suggest that if this
> is the case, that the icon be permitted
> to be different from the larger
> resolution versions of the actual logo.
> The icon can be just a small part of
> the larger concept, and the real logo
> can include a specific font for the
> "POV-Ray" text, for example.
I'm not very fond of this personally.
I think the small version should show the whole logo.
However, additional details could be added to the larger custom versions.
So what I want is to have the small version being the "real" logo while the
larger versions may have extra (not so important) details. What do you think
of this?
> > A 14400 pixel black and white version.
>
> How did you decide on that number?
120*120 is a nice size to begin with I think. The reason I chose that exact
number is that there are many different combinations of width and height
that when multiplied will give that number.
> Anyway, it sounds fine to me. This would
> allow the author to show the complete logo,
> with all of its features.
That's what I thought. I think both the little and the big bw version should
have all the details (they should be identical), but of course the details
may only be visible in the big format.
> > 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.
>
> Oh, OK. So what you're saying is that the
> official logo must be black and white, and
> that there will be no official colors for
> it? I guess that's OK by me, but maybe we
> could choose the best of the three
> presentations for deciding on the best
> official colors?
My intention of the 3 custom formats were not just to show how the logo
could be colored. People could also use them to present the logo in 2D, 3D,
or really fancy versions, and so on, to show how flexible it is.
But maybe we should add an optional format for logos that has "official"
colors. See my reply to Chris Huff.
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:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > A 32x32 pixel black and white version.
>
> This sounds good.
Good!
> > A 14400 pixel black and white version
>
> Why 14400? I personally would prefer 19200,
> so you could have 160*120.
If you take 19200 a square logo will have a width and height of 138.5640...
Of course you would just round down to 138, but if we use 14400, there's
many different formats that gives "nice" numbers, because 14400 is a number
that can be divided with many numbers.
> > So, these 5 formats are my suggestion.
> > What do you think of it?
>
> I would suggest an optional 6th version,
> a "plain" color version. Some logos have
> color schemes which are part of the logo
Yes. I thought of that. Maybe it's best that way. I just hope not too many
people will make logos with "official" colors if the colors are not a very
important part of the logo. Take Tony's eye logo for example. I think it
looks nice in colors, but I don't think the specific colors of the logo are
very important. I would rather have that people could make their own
versions with different colors.
But maybe for those logos where the colors are *really* an important part of
the logo we should have this format. In that case I would say that we should
restrict the amount of colors. Say like, "no color gradients, only plain
colors, and not too many". A couple of colors would be normal while
something like 8 different colors would be an absolute maximum. What do you
think of this?
Anyway, if we add this optional large color format, I think we could have a
32x32 color format too. That way we can see how the official colors look in
a small resolution.
> And maybe a larger resolution "fancy" version,
> like a splash screen. Not necessarily the logo,
> but an image using it.
That's what I though one could use one of the custom formats for. Do you
really think more than 120x120 pixels are required just to show the logo in
a fancy way? I would like to hear what you think, maybe we really should add
a larger format too... But I must also think of bandwidth... Hmm...
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 <391f2357@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:
> Yes. I thought of that. Maybe it's best that way. I just hope not too
> many people will make logos with "official" colors if the colors are
> not a very important part of the logo. Take Tony's eye logo for
> example. I think it looks nice in colors, but I don't think the
> specific colors of the logo are very important.
And then there is my "3 spheres" logo, which pretty much requires the
red/green/blue colors(the text colors are less important, but they were
also chosen for a reason).
> But maybe for those logos where the colors are *really* an important
> part of the logo we should have this format. In that case I would say
> that we should restrict the amount of colors. Say like, "no color
> gradients, only plain colors, and not too many". A couple of colors
> would be normal while something like 8 different colors would be an
> absolute maximum. What do you think of this?
I don't think this should be a requirement, although it might be a
recommendation in the rules. I can't really think of a good reason to do
this.
> Anyway, if we add this optional large color format, I think we could
> have a 32x32 color format too. That way we can see how the official
> colors look in a small resolution.
Good idea.
> That's what I though one could use one of the custom formats for. Do
> you really think more than 120x120 pixels are required just to show
> the logo in a fancy way? I would like to hear what you think, maybe
> we really should add a larger format too... But I must also think of
> bandwidth... Hmm...
Actually, what I was thinking of was allowing one of the 3 "fancy" or
"custom" versions to be a larger size. 120*120 isn't that big on many
monitors, and many of the smaller details on the fancy versions could be
lost...an upper limit should be set, of course, maybe 300*300.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
32X32X2
32X32X16
<=14400pX2
<=14400pX256
<=320000pX16m
<=320000pX16m
<=320000pX16m
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:39213b02@news.povray.org...
>
> What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
>
It's the alternative one with the bad Captain Kirk...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote :
>
> "Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote :
> >
> > What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
> >
>
> It's the alternative one with the bad Captain Kirk...
>
So that would be -this- time line... right? You did mean the bad-acting
Kirk...?
So how come the only response I get to this is a Mellyism...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> And then there is my "3 spheres" logo, which
> pretty much requires the red/green/blue
> colors(the text colors are less important,
> but they were also chosen for a reason).
I agree. Your logo is one of those logos where the colors really are
important.
> > I would say that we should restrict the
> > amount of colors. Say like, "no color
> > gradients, only plain colors, and not too
> > many". A couple of colors would be normal
> > while something like 8 different colors
> > would be an absolute maximum. What do you
> > think of this?
>
> I don't think this should be a requirement,
> although it might be a recommendation in the
> rules. I can't really think of a good reason
> to do this.
It's just because... If we allow gradients and the like, how exactly can we
prevent things like shading, reflection, and other complicated effects,
which belongs to the custom formats only?
I think we need some way to tell that although colors are permitted in the
"official colors format", they still must be simple.
> > Do you really think more than 120x120
> > pixels are required just to show the logo
> > in a fancy way?
>
> 120*120 isn't that big on many monitors, and
> many of the smaller details on the fancy
> versions could be lost... an upper limit should
> be set, of course, maybe 300*300.
So we have 2 custom formats of 120x120 max, and one custom at 300x300 max?
I don't like it personally, but if other think we should have 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> 32X32X2
Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the 2
color versions.
> 32X32X16
I think max 16 colors in the simple color version would be fine :-)
AA should not count as colors though.
> <=14400pX2
I agree.
> <=14400pX256
Hmm, why 256 colors?
> <=320000pX16m
> <=320000pX16m
> <=320000pX16m
On some screens there would not even be room for such large formats (for
example 565x565), especially not in a browser! Do you really need 3 giant
formats just to show the flexibility and fanciness-potential of a simple
logo?
I think Chris Huff's suggestion is more reasonable. He suggest that only ONE
of the "fancy" formats should be large, and not even that large.
What do others 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:
> What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
Earlier I suggested that all logos should be submitted before December 1
2000. After that date it would not be possible to change the logos at all,
so all feedback, suggestions, improvements, changes, and everything must be
done *before* this date.
It may sound of a long time, but consider how long time went by from when
the first logo competition started till the excellent eye logo were made.
Several months. That show is that often a lot of time is required for people
to make up good logos.
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:3921b255@news.povray.org...
{
{ "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
{
{ > 32X32X2
{
{ Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the 2
{ color versions.
Can't AA 2 color images and remain 2 colors.
{ > 32X32X16
{
{ I think max 16 colors in the simple color version would be fine :-)
{ AA should not count as colors though.
Can AA with this many colors but it won't look very antialiased.
{ > <=14400pX2
{
{ I agree.
Same concept. The "jaggies" will abound but perhaps at this higher
resolution it won't seem so bad.
{ > <=14400pX256
{
{ Hmm, why 256 colors?
256 color icons exist, so too do many splash screens and such.
{ > <=320000pX16m
{ > <=320000pX16m
{ > <=320000pX16m
{
{ On some screens there would not even be room for such large formats (for
{ example 565x565), especially not in a browser! Do you really need 3 giant
{ formats just to show the flexibility and fanciness-potential of a simple
{ logo?
Full screen sized logo does seem excessive, but one never knows the end uses.
{ I think Chris Huff's suggestion is more reasonable. He suggest that only ONE
{ of the "fancy" formats should be large, and not even that large.
{
{ What do others think?
I for one think I don't know Chris's idea there at the moment :-)
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> { "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
>
> { > 32X32X2
>
> { Is those 2 colors before or after AA?
> { I think AA should be allowed in the 2
> { color versions.
>
> Can't AA 2 color images and remain 2 colors.
2 colors in the actual logo is one thing.
2 colors in the image is another thing.
I think there should be 2 colors in the logo, but the image may contain
shades of gray (say 16 shades of gray). The shades of gray are for AA only,
the logo itself must be in 2 colors only.
> { > 32X32X16
>
> { I think max 16 colors in the simple color
> { version would be fine :-)
> { AA should not count as colors though.
>
> Can AA with this many colors but it won't
> look very antialiased.
Again, I think there may be 16 colors in the logo, but 256 or 16m or
something in the image (for the AA only).
> { > <=14400pX2
>
> { I agree.
>
> Same concept. The "jaggies" will abound but
> perhaps at this higher resolution it won't seem
> so bad.
I think AA should be allowed.
> { > <=14400pX256
>
> { Hmm, why 256 colors?
>
> 256 color icons exist, so too do many splash
> screens and such.
16m icons exists too. Splash screens is just one of many possible uses.
> { > <=320000pX16m
> { > <=320000pX16m
> { > <=320000pX16m
>
> { On some screens there would not even be room
> { for such large formats (for example 565x565),
> { especially not in a browser! Do you really
> { need 3 giant formats just to show the
> { flexibility and fanciness-potential of a
> { simple logo?
>
> Full screen sized logo does seem excessive, but
> one never knows the end uses.
The submission formats are supposed to be *examples* of how the logos could
be used. We don't need to present every possible format, I think. Also, how
often would you use the logo in a rather small format, and how often would
you use a screen-size version? I think small formats are more common for
logos, so a majority of small formats in the submission formats would be
best, I 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3921b6c5@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > What kind of time line are we on for submissions?
>
> Earlier I suggested that all logos should be submitted before December 1
> 2000.
>
OK, that gives me some sort of schedule to look at. I don't have a lot
of time to do POV-Ray for fun. I am usually doing something else with my
computer time and I have several ideas I would like to actually submit this
time. I hope this is the earliest that we might be expected to submit a logo
and that some of the pre-voting that has been seen will not discourage any
submissions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
>
> > 32X32X2
>
> Is those 2 colors before or after AA? I think AA should be allowed in the
2
> color versions.
Ummm, ok, before...
>
> > 32X32X16
>
> I think max 16 colors in the simple color version would be fine :-)
> AA should not count as colors though.
>
> > <=14400pX2
>
> I agree.
>
> > <=14400pX256
>
> Hmm, why 256 colors?
.gif ... it's some sort of a standard greater than 16 and less than 16m.
>
> > <=320000pX16m
>
> Do you really need 3 giant
> formats just to show the flexibility and fanciness-potential of a simple
> logo?
I don't think we -need- it, but it includes 640x480 and would allow folk
to make a sample scene which might include the logo and show how it would be
used in real life. I will submit something soon showing what I mean.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MHO
Define admissible file formats (like : gif, png, zipped or not) and a
maximum total file size and let author/designers take care of what they want
to include or not. Write some guidelines (what currently are submission
rules). This way no author could complain about too constraining rules but
we will all take care of that when voting. Authors could choose for
themselves if they want to follow the guidelines ("security") or if they
prefer to "break the rules" to gain something else.
Povingly,
Philippe
PS : added benefit : easier rule redaction, interpretation and less possible
fuss/protestations. Perhaps a rule about a max number of logo(s) by the same
person.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > Earlier I suggested that all logos should
> > be submitted before December 1 2000.
>
> OK, that gives me some sort of schedule
> to look at.
Oops, it seems like my original suggestion was actually November 1.
But it was only a suggestion anyway. I didn't get any feedback on this
suggestion.
What do you think would be a good deadline?
> I don't have a lot of time to do POV-Ray for
> fun. I am usually doing something else with
> my computer time and I have several ideas I
> would like to actually submit this time.
Great! I look forward to seeing them!
> I hope this is the earliest that we might be
> expected to submit a logo and that some of
> the pre-voting that has been seen will not
> discourage any submissions.
Me too.
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:
> >
> > > <=320000pX16m
> >
> > Do you really need 3 giant formats just to
> > show the flexibility and fanciness-potential
> > of a simple logo?
>
> I don't think we -need- it, but it includes
> 640x480 and would allow folk to make a sample
> scene which might include the logo and show how
> it would be used in real life. I will submit
> something soon showing what I mean.
The submission formats are supposed to be *examples* of how the logos could
be used. We don't need to present every possible format, I think.
In "real life" I think the logos would be presented rather small 90% of the
time, an much less than 10% of the time you would use the logo in a
screen-size image. Therefore I think in the submission formats it is more
important to show the voters examples of how the logos could look in rather
small resolutions, than to show them how they look in giant formats. We can
have one big format, just to show the potential, but the focus should be on
the rather small resolutions, because that's how a logo is usually
presented.
Also, the big format I'm talking about doesn't have to be more than about
320x240 I think. You don't need to see an image in 640x480 just to tell if
it's a good image. If you see the image in 320x240 you can still tell what
the image is containing, if you like it or not, you can see a fair amount of
detail, and you can imagine how it would look in a larger resolution.
The logos submitted in the logo contest are not finished pieces of art for
the voters to take and use. They are basically meant only to help the voters
decide if they think it is a good logo (and *how* good it is). That is
possible without very large resolutions.
That's my opinion anyway. What do others 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Define admissible file formats (like : gif,
> png, zipped or not) and a maximum total file
> size and let author/designers take care of
> what they want to include or not. Write some
> guidelines (what currently are submission
> rules). This way no author could complain
> about too constraining rules but we will all
> take care of that when voting. Authors could
> choose for themselves if they want to follow
> the guidelines ("security") or if they
> prefer to "break the rules" to gain
> something else.
I don't agree. I think the voters should be able to compare the logos on the
same basis. 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.
> PS : added benefit : easier rule redaction,
> interpretation and less possible
> fuss/protestations.
There might be more possible fuss/protestations from the voters when they
can't compare the logos properly... ;-)
> 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. There maybe should be some restrictions, but they should
not be based on who has made the logos.
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 <3922b186@news.povray.org>, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Perhaps a rule about a max number of logo(s) by the same person.
Why? This sounds counter-productive...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3921b24e@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:
> It's just because... If we allow gradients and the like, how exactly
> can we prevent things like shading, reflection, and other complicated
> effects, which belongs to the custom formats only?
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...
> > 120*120 isn't that big on many monitors, and
> > many of the smaller details on the fancy
> > versions could be lost... an upper limit should
> > be set, of course, maybe 300*300.
>
> So we have 2 custom formats of 120x120 max, and one custom at 300x300
> max?
> I don't like it personally, but if other think we should have it...
I just think something bigger than 120*120 is needed, at least for one
image.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sounds OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" <ben### [at] panamac-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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
