Improved poll about new boot logo

Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: Improved poll about new boot logo
started by: curaga

Posted by curaga on July 03 2007,11:41
This time I got the hang of it, so I made many images. Lucky13 gave one too (propaganda 1). So here are the contestants:

Wooden fame:
New Tux:
Propaganda 1: < >

Posted by curaga on July 03 2007,11:42
Sorry lucky, but the board doesn't accept png images, so that's why just a link..
Posted by lucky13 on July 03 2007,11:43
No problem. I don't think my host will allow it, either. Here's the bumpier 224 indexed version:
< >

EDIT: If you don't mind, can you link to the entry's page instead of the image?

Posted by lucky13 on July 03 2007,12:25
Too late for the poll...
< >

Posted by curaga on July 03 2007,12:45
Link edited. About that third image, Damn Small Linux text isn't really readable anymore, so back to gimp?

edit: lucky, you should vote too. I want the opinion of as many DSL users as possible

Posted by lucky13 on July 03 2007,13:11
I was going to do that before I leave but I've been derailed in a conference call and with e-mail. I'll try to take care of it later (maybe at lunch) and darken the text so it's legible again. Thanks for editing the link. I'll save my vote for later.
Posted by lucky13 on July 03 2007,16:59
I think the one without any text at all looks best (edit: followed by the one next to it with the text in lower case):
< >

Posted by lucky13 on July 03 2007,17:20
Hmm, not sure how I voted for sunset. @&#* mouse.
Posted by curaga on July 04 2007,08:57
That was my vote ;) yours probably went to wooden
Posted by curaga on July 04 2007,09:01
Heh, has a mac ;) It's a linux framebuffer boot logo format limit, nothing to do with macs
Posted by Key on July 04 2007,17:30
When size ( drive space, memory ) matters, then " Water ".
Although I do not know, if it is the smallest.

When size doesn't matter ( more colors ? bigger image ? ) then New Tux.

I like it, finally having a version number displayed :)
Maybe other colors would be better.
It's difficult to rate with these small images.

Posted by curaga on July 05 2007,08:56
They will be that same size when included in DSL. That's the max size for them ;)
They all have nearly same amount of colors. And I think they all take same amount of ram and space..

I think the boot logo format is text, similar to xpm

Posted by mikshaw on July 05 2007,14:29
I remember what I said in the other post...i'm entitled to change my mind if things become a whole lot worse than I expected. =o)

I have always been of the opinion that unnecessary changes should necessarily be improvements. The only image listed here that comes close to this requirement is dsl-propaganda-1, although even that has its problems. The text is virtually unreadable to someone who doesn't already know what it says, so is pretty much just a distraction (EDIT: i see the text was removed in dsl-propaganda-4, which makes it much cleaner and easier on the eyes). The globe doesn't really make any sense to appears as though this graphic was made by adding a "4" to a KDE networking or browser desktop icon. If I *had* to pick a new one, this would be it.

The other four, to be completely honest, are simply not very good. Sunset and New Tux both have messy lines, and that triangle on the inside top of the 4 is a powerful distraction. Water is just terrible...those online javascript avatar wizards from years ago come to mind. The shape of the lighted areas  of Wooden looks a lot like a swastika...serious no-no.

Please don't take my comments as intentionally harsh or personal. Your desire to improve DSL is definitely a good thing, but I just really don't see any reason to replace Tux with something that is of lower quality.

Posted by curaga on July 05 2007,15:14
Tough words, but feedback is always good..

It is hard to not have messy lines with only 80x80 pixels. Please try make one that size that doesn't have messy lines at all ;)

BTW what is a swastika? edit: ah.. Nazi cross. Well, I see only some lights in that :)

seems that no single pic is liked over others. But many have not voted yet..

Posted by mikshaw on July 05 2007,17:26
It is hard to not have messy lines with only 80x80 pixels.
Yes, it is. However, that's not an excuse for accepting them. My "tough words", as you put it, come from years of dealing with professional graphic designers, art professors, and peers in the graphics business/community. It may be difficult to see that what at first might appear to be "good enough" in the eyes of many appears to look "like a teenager's Geocities web site" to many others.

Posted by curaga on July 05 2007,17:44
Why don't you then make some too?
Posted by lucky13 on July 05 2007,18:24
I don't wanna speak for mikshaw, but I think it's safe to say his position is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The question we have to answer isn't about which is the nicest or if it's better than the existing one, it's this: How will this benefit the DSL project and its users? Aesthetics are important, but they don't supercede utility. And utility is what DSL is all about.
Posted by mikshaw on July 05 2007,19:20
Why don't you then make some too?
Not really interested in doing graphic design work, particularly with the technical and creative limitations of this particular project. The only way I can really enjoy drawing is when there is no planning  or limitations...pretty much the opposite of design.

As I said, I mean no disrespect, but I think it's very important that anything changed should be an *improvement* (or at least just as good), and these images are not, technically or artistically, as good as what is already in use. If you consider the artists who develop icons and other seemingly insignificant graphic bits, most don't whip out several projects in a few days days. They create tons of concept sketches for approval or suggested improvement, and work laboriously on every detail until they have a final product that is technically clean, symbolically accurate, and aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps these were intended to be rough sketches of what's to come, but I didn't get that impression. Something as simple as cleaning up the boundaries of New Tux could make it just as good, if not better, in which case I still wouldn't care to vote but I'd have no issue with the change.

I think it's safe to say his position is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Pretty much. I'm kinda sorry I opened my mouth at all, though. I wasn't going to get involved with this topic, since I tend to not care much about what software looks like as long as the visual does not hinder the functionality. The thing that kinda bugged me was the desire to replace something that already serves its purpose with something of lower quality. I'm not saying they're all "bad", but anything "not quite as good" is an illogical change.

Posted by lucky13 on July 05 2007,19:50
Something as simple as cleaning up the boundaries of New Tux could make it just as good, if not better, in which case I still wouldn't care to vote but I'd have no issue with the change.

I fixed what I could in the time I had (lunch) and I can try to clean up any of those to a certain extent if there's interest.

I'm with you on the quality of the images. That's a function of the color indexing (224 is NOT optimum for lines, including text, which is why there's so much distortion) and small geometries, not necessarily a reflection on my or curaga's or anyone's abilities or intentions. Everaldo for all I know has all day to work with his vector graphics, and he probably has the requisite hardware (e.g., tablets, etc.) to do it. I had a few minutes with GIMP and a f'ed up mouse.

Don't be sorry for speaking your mind. I certainly don't hold it against you. It's a poll, and polls measure what others think. It's not our decision what goes in or out, we only can give our input. Yours is noted.

Posted by curaga on July 06 2007,08:33
Exactly. But changing this can't break anything, even if it doesn't fix anything either.
This is all about originality. DSL will stand out from the boot :)

Mik, how would you fix these? Considering the limitations, if there just aren't enough pixels, how to make a line smooth?

I can try to improve these, just that I don't really know how..

Posted by mikshaw on July 06 2007,14:20
What do you mean there aren't enough pixels? Smooth diagonal lines can be faked even in a 16x16 image.

Your problem with Newtux is not just jagged lines, but the fact that there are purple pixels mixed in making the lines appear even more jagged. Zoom in and you'll see them very clearly. It is as if the image was originally on a purple or pink background which was incompletely removed to make transparent.

This is a gif image, which implies no antialiasing from foreground to background. Antialiasing can be faked if you know for sure what the background of the image is going to be, but in this case I would say purple is probably not the color to use. Personally I would completely avoid the antialiasing fake and try to make the edges solid color against solid (or transparent) color. The purple should never have existed in the first place, though, as far as I can guess. There is a postscript version of Tux available which can be used at any resolution, and will not have strange artifacts like this.

The gradient in the "4" seems to enhance the appearance of the jagged edges. In low-color, low-resolution images it is impossible to create a gradient that moves seamlessly from one color to the next. These seams, or waves, are exaggerated when they are crossed with an area of solid color (or no color). It is my belief that if the 4 was a solid color it would have much cleaner edges just by that change.

That triangle I mentioned earlier is a pretty huge design flaw. It's a distraction, an unbalanced focal point, and can even be viewed as an artifact (is it a horn, an ear, just a mistake?). If it were me, I probably would have chosen a different font, or at least filled the triangle or nudged Tux a few pixels.

As far as Sunset goes, I was going to go on about complex gradients in low-color images, but on closer look the gradients themselves are surprisingly well-preserved (at first it looked like the water was heavily pixilated, but i think it's just shadows on the water). The text, however, looks mottled and eaten away in places. It may have been caused by using a too-thin font, or an anti-aliased or badly anti-aliased font. If a particular font does not have clean edges at a desired resolution, it's often a good idea to try a different font.

Posted by curaga on July 08 2007,14:31
ok, thanks. I made them in fairly short time, about 10min each.
As I don't have time to improve them all, I promise if one of my pics wins I will improve that one as much as I can.

Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.