innocentkiller at gmail
Jun 12, 2012, 6:00 PM
Post #7 of 15
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> On 13/06/12 07:47, Chad wrote:
>> 1) It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
>> higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A
>> version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design
>> ideas) takes care of that.
> In the proposed logo, the lines between the petals are hard to see at
> 135px, and are almost invisible at 75px. With no shading, it just
> looks like a yellow blob.
> The solid brown circle in the middle draws the eye, it seems large and
> dominating, and it doesn't match the colour of the original.
Indeed, it could use some cleanup. That being said, I like
the original *intent* of it.
> I'm not opposed to switching to a vector logo, I just think we should
> try to do a proper job of it, say by contracting a graphic designer.
> It doesn't need to be expensive.
We've also got quite a few talented graphic artists amongst the
community, as well as a couple of people inside the Foundation
who are good at this too. Perhaps we should see what they can
come up with first :)
> I don't know what file you're using as a source when you scale up the
> logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons.
> It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width,
> still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale
> it up from 135px.
It would seem a product of me using a poorly sized image
and expecting it to scale. The example in your followup e-mail
does look fine at larger resolutions.
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists