Jump to content

jc...

Members
  • Posts

    908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jc...

  1. I usually do some concepts, but your work is such top notch, I don't need to do them!

    With that said, this will be the first Super Bowl, with the boring generic Super Bowl logo on grass.

    I wasn't aware of your thread, but I consider myself to still be new here, so you'll have to cut me some slack. But I'm interested to see how they excite the logo on grass. They did a good job for Super Bowl XLII with the logos. I'm also interested in seeing what they do for the pro bowl, and if they will remove that paint somehow, paint over that, or re-sod.

    Your time here has nothing to do with it. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. I know there were quite a few people who asked many a time for a Super Bowl field Database, and you sir, knocked it out of the park! The "alternate" thread is probably my favorite. Thank you again!!!! :notworthy:

  2. Here's a correction to Super Bowl I. The only necessary changes were the field dimensions and centering the endzone logos and wordmarks.

    MopfNEN.png

    < First Post Super Bowl II >

    I knew this, but just remembered it from watching the Super Bowl I highlights, each endzone had a slightly lighter yellow border, maybe a foot or foot and half wide, inside the endzone. This is the best pic I could find without taking a picture of the TV with a cell phone.

    960x540.jpg

  3. The trick with the helmet end zones is to not use the alternate color for the background. Like the Eagles for Super Bowl XV. The gray end zone makes it hard to see the out of bounds border. Really, the end zone should have been green. But then the helmets would blend in too much.

    Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX used too small of a helmet to make them pop. Maybe because of the modern facemasks? I wouldn't think so.

    I always thought in the more recent Super Bowls, that the Steelers should have had black instead of yellow.

  4. I think it had more to do with keeping the script look like it is supposed to be without getting stretched or shrunk.

    If you look at the Broncos wordmark from Super Bowl's XXXII and XXXIII you can see how they stretched the lettering vertically to make it big.

    http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/98529-super-bowl-field-database-sb-xliii-steelers-vs-cardinals-added/page-17#entry2295025

    http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/98529-super-bowl-field-database-sb-xliii-steelers-vs-cardinals-added/page-17#entry2298232

    The actually Broncos wordmark is actually short.

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/mvxsk3btmpewzxzovglilwc4w/Denver_Broncos/1997/Wordmark_Logo

    The Seahawks and Cardinals wordmark is similar, so instead of distorting it, they added the full wordmark that included city name to keep the proportions correct.

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/998/Seattle_Seahawks/2002/Wordmark_Logo

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/4609/Arizona_Cardinals/2005/Wordmark_Logo

    I can see that. The current Atlanta script is also very similar. So it also would have been about the same as well. Everything about the endzones for this game where very proportional!

    Atlanta is another good example. And other examples that they DIDN'T put the city name in, mostly because it wasn't part of the word mark, the Ravens in Super Bowl XXXV and the Bears in Super Bowl XLI. They both had huge contrast in word mark styles with their opponents, the Giants and Colts who both have tall wordmarks. And the Colts one is pretty narrow.

  5. I think it had more to do with keeping the script look like it is supposed to be without getting stretched or shrunk.

    If you look at the Broncos wordmark from Super Bowl's XXXII and XXXIII you can see how they stretched the lettering vertically to make it big.

    http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/98529-super-bowl-field-database-sb-xliii-steelers-vs-cardinals-added/page-17#entry2295025

    http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/98529-super-bowl-field-database-sb-xliii-steelers-vs-cardinals-added/page-17#entry2298232

    The actually Broncos wordmark is actually short.

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/mvxsk3btmpewzxzovglilwc4w/Denver_Broncos/1997/Wordmark_Logo

    The Seahawks and Cardinals wordmark is similar, so instead of distorting it, they added the full wordmark that included city name to keep the proportions correct.

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/998/Seattle_Seahawks/2002/Wordmark_Logo

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/4609/Arizona_Cardinals/2005/Wordmark_Logo

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.