Subject:
|
Re: On obscure color conversions.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.mlcad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:26:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1947 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.mlcad, James Jackson writes:
> #492 - Reddish Orange (or a transparent alternative for POV-Ray, ?)
As long as we're taking the time to be official, we should also be correct. The
"Trans" color names shouldn't be short for "Transparent" because transparent
means a lack of color. The "Trans" should be short for "Translucent" which
means letting light partially through. The only (sort of) "transparent" lego
are clear bricks.. so Trans-Orange, Trans-Red, etc. are actually "Translucent
Orange" or "Translucent Red"
:)
Just my nitpick, I'm a stickler for semantics
J
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: On obscure color conversions.
|
| (...) That's not the way I learned the difference between transparent and translucent. So, I dug out my mini dictionary and looked 'em up: Transparent: "Capable of transmitting light so that objects and images beyond can be clearly perceived." (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
| | | Re: On obscure color conversions.
|
| (...) The (...) Jeff, I'm glad you picked up on that. But we're not the company who printed "transparent" in catalogs that are arguably older than both of us. :) James J. (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | On obscure color conversions.
|
| This post is here to start a discussion on color names for obscure combinations made by older programs. In LDLite, a few colors were added to the existing LDraw/LEdit palette. Among them were 21, the glow-in-the-color, 25, the reddish orange, and 2 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
