Hi Gabriel (et al.),<div><br></div><div>I appreciate your critical eye, and I see the part that you're keying in on.</div><div><br></div><div>As Curtis said, the image is near verbatim from the photo (I straightened out the scope so it's vertical to clean up aliasing). </div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, take a close look at the one of the top-down views of the scope. You'll notice that the objective mount is actually shifted towards the back side (wrt the logo angle) of the scope. This is the reason that it appears so strange—it IS actually tilted towards the viewing perspective of the logo.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This bugs me as much as it bugs you, so I've Attached is a minor revision that I think confuses the viewer less.</div><div><br></div><div>-Adam</div><div><br></div><div>PS: I LOVE the other scope image you sent, but unfortunately that'd take some serious time to rebuild in Photoshop, and there's a good chance that it won't be very discernable as a small icon. Anyway, today's my last day of work here, so yeah... tweaks only please! :)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Gabriel Landini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:G.Landini@bham.ac.uk">G.Landini@bham.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Friday 28 Oct 2011 16:11:51 Curtis Rueden wrote:<br>
> The drawing is essentially verbatim from a photograph that Johannes & I<br>
> took. See the gallery at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/5695175/1//microscopes?h=a9095a" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/5695175/1//microscopes?h=a9095a</a><br>
><br>
> Specifically, check out image 14 of 38.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, exactly, if you brighten it, it shows that the bottom brass piece of the<br>
main tube (attached to the revolving piece is oncave (while the logo is<br>
completely horizontal). And the top one (at the ocular piece should be<br>
slightly convex.<br>
As it stands it mixes 2 different perspectives in a single object... but...<br>
thinking about it, Picasso did not do too bad with that approach :-)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Unfortunately, Adam is leaving the team, and will not have time to develop<br>
> any more vectorized images. Also, keep in mind that the image must be<br>
> simple enough to be discernible at various smaller resolutions including<br>
> 32x32 and even 16x16 (with a little tweaking).<br>
<br>
</div>Sorry to hear that... Yes, sure the drawing has a lot of work and maybe when<br>
reduced it is not even noticeable.<br>
<br>
Also perhaps with a little of retouching that can be changed to match the<br>
picture. Are the vector graphics editable and available?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Perhaps we should do a similar thing for the logo as with the About dialog<br>
> images: let's hold an open contest where people can submit candidate<br>
> logos, and then the community can vote on the one they like best. What do<br>
> you think?<br>
<br>
</div>Why not!<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">Cheers<br>
<br>
Gabriel<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ImageJ-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ImageJ-devel@imagejdev.org">ImageJ-devel@imagejdev.org</a><br>
<a href="http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel" target="_blank">http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>