New logo

[sharky]

and what do you think about this?!?!?

[sharky]

personally i like it much..

[Neil]

WOW! Can you give the mouth a red outline - just on the edge?

Neil

[Neil]

Actually, can you give the mouth a red outline, and a bright pink inside? The mouth will be more obvious that way.

I really like it!

Neil

[sharky]

i tried, it looks like a bitch... do you really want that?!?!?

[sharky]

and red is not that good with the other colors we have.

[Neil]

Just red on the edge, and light, light pink on the inside. Give it a try.

Neil

[sharky]

here it is...



i liked the previous one more.. it has also a much more professional look. this reminds me of a kid game. (that is also the reason why most people didnt like the old logo..)

[Isei]

Sorry for bashing but seriously, the current logo is better. The one above looks about 10 years old

[sharky]

go back and look at the previous version.. page 3 the last one. what do you think about that one?

[Isei]

They are a little better but in my opinion it doesn't cut it - I think 3d rendered image is the wrong approach for a logo.. And it's very tough to do a logo with those eyes, they look fuken awkard.

In my opinion the logo needs colors that match each other better - take a look at yours it has Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, Black, White - yeah it looks so 90's.

Why not just go with a quiet, stylish logo - for example Nvidia's logo that's a good one. A friend of mine said the MTBS logo grabs your attention but in the wrong way hehe - it's not pretty and I agree.

I would like to make logos too but I don't really have any artistical skills and I'm not good with photoshop.

[sharky]

well if you start from the beginning of this thread maybe you see the different tries we made. personally i dont like the eyes. but not meant particularly this one, i mean the eyes as whole idea. but if we have to stick with the eyes, with the text and with the colors and just have to make the original one more modern than this is a goo dsolution i think. at least the face gives the "wth am i seeing" idea.

colors. colors are a bit a problem. you ahve to see them on the small logo, but they don't have to be to kiddy. its not easy.

the advantage of 3d rendering is that you can make almost everything with your logo. movies, S-3D images, pics from different perspectives etc. and that is not less.

the nvidia logo is also 3d rendered. but also if you're not photoshop talented you canmake some sketches.. just to show your ideas.. maybe togheder we can find a better one.

[Isei]

http://www.nvidia.com/page/home.html

I don't think the logo on top of their page is 3d rendered. Of course they have so many versions of that logo so there are probably many 3d rendered ones too. But lets take the one on the page as an example - it looks good and it's not 3d rendered.

I like the one you made first in the first post the best, everything after that is much worse..

I have a friend who is pretty skilled at this stuff he can probably come up with some ideas.

Also why is there 4 lines of text in the logo? that just makes everything so much harder - no professional companies have alot of text in their logo. Just an idea - remove the text, maybe just keep MTBS or something.

[sharky]

hi! we are in voice chat from 2 hours now trying to find a sutable solution. the text is away from more then a hour. its not that full now. looks much better.



the logo of nvida on that page is rendered. look at this bigger version:

http://www.erenumerique.fr/images/news/ ... nvidia.jpg

same logo.

i work with rendering and 3d modelling and for that bit what i know i could bet that it is rendered. obviously, scaled down its hard to see, but it is a non sense if you have a 3d image to make a not-rendered version because you just need to switch off perspective and you get a photoshop like result.

[Neil]

Hello everyone!

Here are some ideas we came up with. It's still not where we want it to be, but comparing the old logo to the new ideas, what are your recommendations and ideas? BE CONSTRUCTIVE!


Option 1



Option 2



Option 3



Option 4



Option 5



Option 6



Option 7



Option 8



Option 9



Option 10



Option 11



Option 12



Option 13

[sharky]

please, about this last ones post your comments on the poll. just to keep all toghether.

thank you

[Sir C]

I know this post is a little old, but I want to add my two cents too.

A little description:

For the isotype I preffer to use just one eye instead of two to keep it simple, but adding some depth to represent that mtbs is all about true 3D.
The text is simple and no 3d to maintain the readibilty and make the people more easy to remember.
I added some flat versions of the logo in one color and reversed against black.

Here it is, I hope you like it.

[Neil]

Nice!

There are a lot of talented people in these forums. It does have a nice look to it.

Regards,
Neil

[mastRmind]

Sir C,

Good job, I like it much better than the current logo.

[Neil]

Uh oh...I better lock this thread before I get in trouble.

A lot of blood sweat and tears went into the current logo. All our marketing materials have it, etc.

Maybe we can revisit this later.

Regards,
Neil

[Sir C]

Oh sorry, I did'n mean to make problem here and I din't know about the marketing materials. I just wanted to be helpful.

[Neil]

No worries, and no problem.

(release the hounds)

Regards,
Neil

[sharky]

sirC i could KILL you.. i love your logo! if only you would have posted it some months ago.. really good job! its fantastic! what program did you use for it?

bye

igor

[Sir C]

Adobe Illustrator CS3.

[Damian]

Alright, I've been silent for too long, when really these things need to be said.

MTBS is a great idea, but since the first time I've come in contact with it, it seems incredibly amateurish. I don't mean to bash anyone, and that's understandable for a new group, but it hasn't improved. Don't get me wrong, I love MTBS, I check it regularly, and it's great that this subject is finally being pushed out of the dark... But the way things are now, there is no chance of being taken seriously from the mainstream gaming community. I'm highly dedicated to supporting S3D but even I have trouble with MTBS. I'm not 'active' and never have been, because iI feel kind of off put.

Neil, you seem like a really nice guy and you have your heart in the right place... But really MTBS needs professional help, you need to sit down with professionals and discuss with an open mind what would be best. I'd be prepared to donate $$$ to upgrading MTBSs image, even. You're already paying for keeping a server running and connected, and other overheads I'm sure, so obviously you appreciate to get things off the ground it takes investment.

The truth is I am put off by just about every part of MTBSs image. I don't like the name (it doesn't sound specific [until you learn it's an S3D related group], or grabbing, or professional), I don't like the site (lots of page titles which don't immediately mean anything, confusing, etc), I don't like the logo (it looks like it was made by someone who is not a professional designer). I feel bad critisizing these things as somone has put time and thought into them, but they just haven't been pulled off well. sirCs new logo is very nice but a logo by itself is no good, how will it be applied? Even for something simple like a letterhead, unless it's a complete fluke, it will look amateurish if it's been done by someone non-professional, as a professional has developed skills and learnt techniques over a long time period, to know how to lay things out and proportion things cleanly and professionally.

I can't personally say what would or wouldn't work, as how well something works depends entirely on implementation. (not to mention I personally can't say what everyone will like, that's taste.)
But I'd like to see the site become just a simple blog style page (although not a blog, something more like http://www.engadget.com/ except instead of gadget news it's S3D news or reviews), which is linked in with the forum and a community Wiki. The Wiki could handle all of the content that the site has at the moment.
For the blog style part of the site for news/reviews/features/articles whatever, the sections and entries could be user generated and come from an associated forum topic area; For example, anyone could write a S3D related game review, by going into the S3D game review forum and posting a review. It would be better if this wasn't automatically put into the main websites 'blog' area for obvious reasons, quality control, accuracy, appropriateness, etc, so instead it would be voted for or against by other users, or approved by a Moderator.
This would allow users to contribute to the community themselves, by posting news/reviews/articles, and have this be included on the site... As unfortunately MTBS doesn't feel like much of a community to me as it is.

These are just my preliminary views and not much thought has gone into them so I apologize for that, but I just felt I needed to say something. I should have said something from the start. I don't feel good telling people that what they poor their heart and soul into, doesn't hit the mark. But I honestly don't think it has.

...I say it because I care. And I want to see this work continue and do well.

[Neil]

Hi Damian,

Thanks for your valuable feedback. We have big plans here at MTBS, and a lot of changes are coming down the pipe. I know I said it before, but a redesign is in the works. You aren't the first to bring this up, though I do appreciate you are coming forward with feedback to help propel MTBS forward, not back.

It's important to remember that the site is only 11 months old, and started as a proof of concept with very limited resources. Yet, here we are with a site that is ranked in the top 3% of all sites according to Alexa.com (and climbing), MTBS is the most active stereo community on the Internet today, we benefited from the first public appearance by NVIDIA stereo in years, and we have reviews with several leaders in the industry. When the site goes down, it's because we are hitting our traffic limitations, and we have to call our hosting company to reset things for us.

This is not the end of where we want to be, this is the very beginning. Believe me, once the resources are confirmed, I'm going to be taking a sledge hammer to this site to make it more polished and interesting for industry and members alike. We are just finishing a proof of concept phase, that's all. Incidentally, I have much bigger plans than what engadget is offering. MTBS is not going to be a simple blog site, though we will have similar components.

Thanks in advance,
Neil

[sharky]

hi damian!

im sharky, the one who made the logo.. dont worry i dont take it as an offence, i studied something totally different than webdesigning or graphics so what you say is absolutely correct and understandable. what makes me think, and is also a question to you is:

why so late? why didnt you say it months ago?

i entered in the administration team 5 months after mtbs has been created, and most of the sitehas been made based on user suggestions, user ideas, and so on. everything based on user ideas. such a comment months ago wouldnt have passed unseen and probably it would have been easier to make it more professional.

again this is not about the contento of your post.. its more about the "Alright, I've been silent for too long, when really these things need to be said."

i hope to see you back soon on the forums since sincere feedbacks like yours are allways needed..

bye

igor

[Damian]

Eep sorry I was overly fussed over saying what I wanted to say as well as possible which delayed me from replying and then ... I forgot ... That is poor form I apologize, I will do better in future !

....Anyway as to the question... Actually I guess it's probably personal rather than anything to do with MTBS.

Something recently was that the iZ3D driver was released which at first I didn't pay much attention to, as I don't have an iZ3D monitor.
But after reading about it (I don't care that much and yet I read it, uh?) I was surprised and encouraged to find out that it can be used with out an iZ3D monitor, instead running anaglyph.
So I get excited and download it, and then!
Find out it's completely useless to me, as I'm using 64-bit Vista and the driver is 32-bit only.

I know I shouldn't be too upset about this as I know iZ3D are very interested in 64-bit drivers (in development, even) and that they will surely be available very soon, but it is things like this which seem to just happen again and again. One disappointment after another.

And I suppose it's that it reminds me of what could be and what a site like this could do... But then I think about it and even with all the activity MTBS hasn't moved all that far.
And you're right I should have been giving input since I was first here (which was many many months ago, MTBS had just opened it's doors). Which was also why I commented that way as that I was silent too long.

I almost started an S3D site myself due to dissatisfaction, and sometimes I still feel like I want to do that. Now it's true I may have different goals to MTBS ... I don't know ... I don't see MTBS as being a timeless resource that can just stay around indefinitely, as the way it is now it depends very much on the state of S3D, and the community discussing it... But that can only go on for so long. It isn't consistent, it's historically very turbulent ...

S3D seems to be something which floats in and out and it just isn't in a position to be maintained right now, and so a site centered around solely the S3D industry will do great when there are things happening, and virtually die out when there is a S3D news drought. The problem is a few things really need to happen right now to make it work, in fact these things should have happened yesterday! These are (the ones I see):

1) S3D drivers which:

• *Is 100% Open-source (free, non proprietary and under GPL)
  *Can get S3D from any 3D DirectX or OpenGL application, and provides provisions for games specifically supporting it (or GPU manufactures, this would be the holy grail)
  *Work on all major operating systems (Windows XP/Vista 32/64-bit, Linux, Mac OS X)
  *Can output anaglyph, control shutter glasses, and transmit 2 video signals from the GPU (assuming it has 2 outputs)
  * Would support custom 'profiles', so that companies who make S3D hardware can easily add profiles to support the output methods that they need, or users could create their own custom output options

2) File formats for content creators, as right now if someone might want to play with making S3D content such as a 2 channel picture or video to post to a art site like I don't know, deviantart.com, or their personal portfolio, or just for their personal amusement, they can't!
It could simply be a file which stores 2 already existing formats, such as for a stereo picture it would store 2 standard jpgs, and then a free lightweight decoder which can output the stereo content correctly (for example it could create a 2D anaglyph image by combining the 2 channels, or send one channel down one of the GPUs outputs and the other through the other output for HMDs or stereo monitors).
These would also be Open-source, free, non-proprietary, GPLed, and support custom output profiles.
In the future it could support it's own custom optimized format, but for now just crudely splicing pre-existing formats is better than nothing!

And finally, 3) Support of existing technology and getting support added for future arrangements! For example the DVB standard for Digital TV supports up to 6 channels of audio, and yet only 1 channel of video! Who is approaching them and showing them Stereo video is the future so they can add this to the standard! HD-DVD may have been beaten but what about Blu-Ray, have they been approached about supporting Stereo video at some stage (perhaps Blu-Ray 2.0!?).

I think that's what I wanted to say. How do you feel about that?

[Neil]

Hi Damian,

I think you need to back up some of your points. You say we haven't come very far; what is your measuring stick for less than a year of existence? You say we are inconsistent; define inconsistent. You say we are turbulent; define turbulent.

In my opinion, while you have some good ideas, your message is defeatist. You talk like S-3D is about to vanish without non proprietary drivers or some side by side format view. Our future will be much more fruitful compared to what you are describing, and it will not be dependent on the criteria you are discussing. They could be pluses, yes, but not requirements.

I will fill you in on some of our industry goals and how we will accomplish them next month.

Regards,
Neil

[Damian]

To clarify, I meant S-3D has been inconsistent and turbulent, not MTBS. And my dissatisifaction is to do with the state of things in this area, not MTBS! I'll say again I really support the idea and I'm glad it's here.

For example we had HMDs since the 80s didn't we? I remember them in arcades, ridiculous things they were
And they vanished when the novelty wore off because they were expensive, poor resolutions, caused all sorts of unpleasant side-effects.
And then there was a revival of interest when shutter glasses became cheap, and I'd say this was the hay-day of S3D. Even with a GPU manufacturer coming on board to have optimized drivers!
But even at this time S-3D was still never 'mainstream'.
And then we all know the story now so I'll leave out the criticism, but there isn't any affordable way to get S-3D with an LCD monitor with the exception of anaglyph, which isn't the best solution, and that's assuming you have drivers to create the anaglyph image - and for the moment that part of the equation is difficult too, unless you are using a setup which is a few years old. I'm sure this gap will be filled, but that was what my point was, we aren't there yet, and S-3D seems to have come in surges historically.

As far as letting the technology mature; I don't understand why people say this. I'll use the example of HMDs again (as this is my pet field), how an HMD works is actually very simple, and we've had the design of HMDs down almost ever since the first HMDs. The design itself doesn't need changing, it is already working well.
So what was the problem then? Well, for one, it wasn't until recent years that there was much movement in Microdisplays - What would be used to generate the image in an HMD.
But looking now that is even getting historical, in terms of technological development. Full-color (and reasonable, although not large, resolution) Microdisplays have been in digital camera viewfinders virtually since digital cameras first appeared.
Today high-resolution Microdisplays are used in Rear-Projection TVs, a quick search reveals in a pinch you can find Rear-Projection TVs which support HDTV resolutions for under $1000. So where are the $2000 HDTV resolution HMDs? They aren't around because it's difficult to be viable, as there isn't large adoption, support, or acceptance of S3D. (And yes someone feel free to mention TDVisor ... I'll be very happy when HD TDVisor arrives)

I don't mean to come off as defeatist. I can see a bright future for S3D... It's so important a part of visual perception of course it will come in. But there are reasons it isn't adopted now, and these are things that can be worked through. And I fully support any effort in this area.

And if you must make me back up why I say MTBS hasn't come that far... Well you're right I couldn't say that, but I only have to go on what I can see. What I see is the site appears very much the same (a few small sections added but it is much the same as it started), not much seems to have outwardly progressed... Alright so I hear about all these exciting things happening in the background ... But I can't see this background. (And yes I know, it's probably reasonable we wouldn't have seen Stereo 3D driver development back on the table with NVidia and things like this...)
But I wasn't really criticizing anything now and I apologize if it sounded that way.
Wait hang on can't I just be unhappy about the state of things? But I want my S3D nooow

And I'm not sure what you are saying with "Our future will be much more fruitful compared to what you are describing, and it will not be dependent on the criteria you are discussing."
Am I misunderstanding you or do you not think S3D will have trouble growing up without people being able to access, use, and create, S3D content if that content is an isolated closed-standard?

[sharky]

hi damian! thanks for your reply! i hope i didnt sound rude, my english is not th ebest so sometimes my sentences sound very cold even if it is not what i have in mind.

now, back to the point, personally i think that your vision of the situation is very very very out of target. you are right on some points, regarding the "look" and the professional IMAGE of mtbs.. we all agree with you that it looks a bit "homemade"... but i absolutely dont agree with what this will cause.. i dont think that the look makes people come back or not. what people wants it to have results, and if you checked trough the whole forum in ONE year we have accomplished a lot.. we all agree that we are not at the point you would like to be, but nobody could reach such a point from nothing in only one year. we are not talking about making a "youtube" site where you need teh idea, place it on internet and the rest goes alone.. we are talking about making something officially recognized and implemented in game engines. this takes much more time! 3D has been a DIY-kind of thing for a very long time. now after a year the drivers are plug-n- play (even if for now it is only one, and is not for free. but it is a start.. )things happen slowly, but happen, and in order to continue to happen we all have to stay toghether.

regards

igor

[Neil]

Hi Damian!

I'm glad you like MTBS, and if there are things you don't, that's ok too. All I ask is that you back it up or express it clearly so we have what to work with. Most of what we do and implement here is done based on member feedback.

Now, to measure MTBS' success, it's important to know where our power comes from and what we are setting out to do. I explained earlier that universal drivers, side by side file formats, and excellent S-3D solutions (I'm adding that one now ) are good motivators for success. However, let's separate from that for a moment.

Even though there is some history to S-3D in gaming, we have to treat it as a brand new industry that has the luxury of benefiting from earlier experience. We know from experience that the manufacturers, NVIDIA included, did not have a successful run of getting the industry to move despite some having all the advantages. It's not their fault. In a scenario like this, a top down approach where a small number of companies determines the direction of the industry won't foster its growth.

Even today, if NVIDIA went to EA and said implement S-3D, EA would say "Great idea, NVIDIA, show me the benefits first." Company size doesn't matter in this industry.

Now, if I went to EA, and I had 100,000 registered members, and said "EA! Our members love your games. Let's make sure your games work in S-3D because I have 100,000 people waiting to buy them the moment I tell them to, and they plan on telling all their friends as well," then EA will wake up. Then they will make a point to render properly or add native support or try to contribute to the industry, etc. With EA on board, the S-3D investment budgets will equally go through the roof, and the solutions on the market will improve. Everything ties in together. We don't need 100,000 members who own S-3D solutions, just 100,000 members interested in S-3D; they are both equally valuable.

As for MTBS' progress, you are half correct. For a first year, we accomplished more than we anticipated. I knew we would capture the interest of existing S-3D gamers, but nearly 2,500 registrants means we are attracting gamers who don't yet own S-3D solutions. I also thought it would be harder to get all the leaders in the industry to make an appearance on the site so quickly; including NVIDIA, so I am please about that too. There is a lot of good industry karma now, so I think MTBS is doing a good job of leveraging that for everyone's benefit.

I just got back from the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, and with the progress we accomplished this year, I think I opened some valuable doors for our industry which I am very excited about. You will have to be patient with me on this one.

Our next step is to create the means to convert 2,500 registrants into 100,000 registrants in a year, and it is very feasible. We will announce some of our strategies next month.

Regards,
Neil

[DickDastardly]

Just seen the new website design and the new logo for the first time, both of which look much better than before -gj to all involved. Having said that, I'm a bit uncomfortable about the fact that the logo only has one eye, which strikes me as a bit of a strange choice for a site promoting stereo vision technologies. Perhaps it could be adapted slightly to make it a bit more appropriate?



Cheers,
DD

[CarlKenner]

I vote for two eyes.

By the way, the person who complained about no support for 64 bit... Your attitude is completely wrong. 99.99% of software is not 64 bit. You bought a computer that is not a PC (aka x86), and you are surprised that there is no software for it. The only reason you can run anything at all on it, is because it emulates an x86. But you can't expect that to work for anything that hacks into other software and changes what it does.

There is no way for independent software developers to develop for 64 bit, unless you are prepared to buy them a new computer.

[sharky]

personally i like it oneeyed better... double eyed seems to much to me..

but this is only my opinion..
cu

[chrisdfw]

I like the cleaner look of the new logo but I agree it needs 2 eyes. It isn't relative if one eye looks better when this site is all about stereo viewing. That would be like a car enthusiast web site having a logo of an airplane because it looks cooler.

I don't like the top of the page having the Welcome, User Stats, and Web Stats. This isn't my Battlefield 2 character so stats aren't the most important thing to me. Those should take up less room and be at the bottom or off to the side. It would also be nice to see more than one line of Latest Game Review, Interview, Editorial, and Press release. Perhaps at least 3 for each of those.

Overall I like the entire cleaner and more professional look. Good job!

[Neil]

Hi Chrisdfw,

You are going to laugh, but I called my mother up after the site was released to see how it struck her.

She is not very computer literate, and she barely understands the MTBS business. However, when she saw the website on the phone (would you believe I had to instruct her on how to find the URL bar in IE?), her first reaction was that the logo looked 3D. Everything looked 3D, and she immediately got it.

My mother is with it, but computers aren't her thing. She doesn't know NVIDIA from ATI, or anything. She instantly remarked about the eye that she got a 3D message from it. It made sense to her and she conveyed the message to me without being prodded.

I know what you mean about stereoscopic 3D being a two-eyed approach, but when my mother got it so quickly, I knew no further changes were needed.

Regards,
Neil

[crim3]

My grandmother used to comment, with the agreement of my mother, how handsome I was, but it turned out not to be very close to reality

[A.J.]

Please please please don't make it two eyed, it just doesn't work as a logo. I think the extrusion makes the point clear enough.

[chrisdfw]

I do like it better than the old logo. The 3-d effect is good and clean, but I just can's get passed the single eye when 2 eyes is needed for stereo 3d.

I am sure it will grow on me.