fafalone Posted November 13, 2002 Posted November 13, 2002 I have created a banner and buttons if you wish to link to us. They are standard sized (468x60, 120x60, 88x31) JPGs in the attached zip. The raw render from 3dsmax is available at http://fafalone.hypermart.net/scienceforums/ ( (very) high-resolution TIF) if you wish to resize it to other dimensions for other use. Note: I noticed that for some reason QuickTime apparently thinks it can open .tif files. It cannot. Use Save Target As (or equiv in your browser) and open it with a program that can actually read that format, or your browser may freeze. sf_images.zip
Sayonara Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 I've added the banner to the rotation at http://www.starfleetarchive.com and http://www.starfleetarchive.co.uk - it has an approx. frequency of 1/10 at the moment, which is 3 times higher than the average appearance of a single banner.
blike Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 Good god, anything but those horrific beasts. we'll have to come up with some better ones anyhow, THANKS SAYO!!!!!!!!!
Sayonara Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 I can certainly understand the difficulties involved in making a banner for a decentralised subject like "science" without making it realllly cheesy.
fafalone Posted October 29, 2003 Author Posted October 29, 2003 So fucking take it off your rotation if you hate it.
Sayonara Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 fafalone said in post #9 :So fucking take it off your rotation if you hate it. I didn't say I hated it, I said it didn't 0wn. Chill. Besides which, whether or not I like it is immaterial. It's on my rotation because I'm doing Blikey boy a favour, not because I want to listen to you being a knob.
blike Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 fafalone said in post #9 :So fucking take it off your rotation if you hate it. please unwad your panties
blike Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 fafalone said in post #9 :So fucking take it off your rotation if you hate it. clearly such language warrents a warning
blike Posted October 29, 2003 Posted October 29, 2003 also, the bottom one looks fine. the top two, since they are clearly stretched to fit, look like my rear
fafalone Posted October 29, 2003 Author Posted October 29, 2003 blike said in post #12 : clearly such language warrents a warning Clearly such misspellings warrant* a revokation of nerd status...
Dudde Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 so...we warn faf and ban blike? what's going on with that? I like the banners, except the top one is stretched a bit, but so what? look who's talking, I don't even know how to use 3Dsm yet
Sayonara Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 I hear blike's rear looks like it's stretched to fit. Hey, he said it first :-D 3DS Max is the last thing I'd use to make a banner. PHS, Illustrator, Freehand or Flash. Or Quark if I were a loony "Mac Operator". Although you can't work with light as well in PHS as you can in 3D software.
Dudde Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 he probably did it to get the nice 3D effect in there, without having to worry about filters and layer effects in photoshop those get annoying of course you can always make it in photoshop and import it to max I guess.... who says quark users were loony? it's just the fact that it's on mac's that makes you second think the whole thing;) don't see why you'd pick illustrator or flash over max though. ya bleedin' english freak
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Because they're more appropriate software for generating banners?
greg1917 Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 While you lot argue amongst yourselves id like to point out that the banners in question show the Bohr model of the atom with highly irregular size ratios between the size of the nucleus and electron orbiatals, and as a chemist I feel it is my duty to complain. Im not writing this to get a torrent of abuse from faf, honestly. No really, Im not.
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 The image is represented in better proportions on the way in to faf's homepage - you can see it there in its full and unstretched glory.
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Because the image dimensions have not been distorted.
greg1917 Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Im talking about the fact that the nuclear radius is impossibly huge for the atomic orbitals shown to exist. if your going to draw a picture draw it right!
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 I was talking about the image proportions in a general sense, rather than the atomic proportions in a specific sense.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now