[kdenlive] Kdenlive website and brand logo?

[Harald Albrecht]

Hi Sam,

(sorry for the delay, this got into the wrong mail folder)

your explanations are clear and I understand them. You stance isd 
basically is similar in some way to how I see it, albeit my stance on 
the film metaphor is less strict.

My impression is that the professional NLVE makers went for the more 
abstract designs because you can't get a trademark on a graphical icon 
if it is too generic with respect to the film strip. The more abstract, 
the more colors, then you stand out -- on the price of not conveying an 
NLVE's purpose anymore.

While it is nice to deploy subtle graphics, I don't see how this can 
work in the restricted space of an application icon. Maybe that's also 
the reason for me not being exactly thrilled with a logo design that is 
already too-detailed. In fact, I actually like the rather flat 
appearance of the Breeze and Microsoft new icon sets. Seems I'm getting 
into that age where you tone-down colors and rather focus on shape. ;)

Unfortunately, the simple play icon nowadays used for video also stands 
for ... well, play. But not create. How could we signal that this is 
about "creating video" in the sense of creating the final rendered 
video, and not simply consuming video?

With best regards,
Harald


Am 04.03.2016 um 12:32 schrieb Sam Muirhead:
> Hi Harald, thanks for your input. For me the problem with the film 
> strip is not that it doesn't adequately represent 'moving image', of 
> course you are right, it is very effective for that.
>
> My problem with it is that it doesn't come across as particularly 
> professional.
> It is used a lot in consumer or amateur environments to very quickly 
> get across the idea that 'this is something for video'. But here you 
> can see a comparison of a few logos with more amateur-focused programs 
> on the left and professional programs on the right:
> http://www.cameralibre.cc/wp-content/uploads/amateur-vs-pro.png
>
> Well, personally I find both Lightworks and Final Cut's logos a bit 
> dated, but even so, pro software just isn't using the film strip 
> anymore - not because it doesn't communicate 'video' well, but because 
> it doesn't communicate 'pro video' very well. In the pro world, the 
> only likely place you will find a film strip in a logo is in software 
> which genuinely interacts with film (film restoration/telecine/conform 
> etc).
> You see it as well in the naming of programs. Something with 'Movie' 
> in the title and a film strip in the logo is targeted at consumer use.
> Something with 'Video' in the title and a more abstract/less 
> 'friendly' logo is targeted at professionals.
>
> You gave the example of the floppy disk. Yes, it works very well for a 
> 'save' icon, it's a distinctive shape and it has become part of our 
> digital culture. But you wouldn't use a floppy disk image as the icon 
> for professional enterprise-level backup software.
>
> Regarding the 'rewind K' I'm not proposing it as a logo but rather one 
> metaphor which could be subtly incorporated in a design, if it fits. 
> It should first be seen as a K, and only on second glance, or once it 
> is pointed out, should you see it as a rewind symbol as well.
> For me 'rewind' is a perfectly adequate symbol for a story-oriented 
> video editor - as opposed to a media player, where I just want to hit 
> play, when I'm editing a story I want to go back and forth through the 
> material again and again.
> I hope this makes my perspective clearer!
> kind regards,
> Sam
> ----
> Sam Muirhead
> Open Source / Video
> http://cameralibre.cc
> http://openitagency.eu
> https://OSCEdays.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdenlive/attachments/20160305/05b9ab2b/attachment.html>