exocomics@lemmy.worldM to Extra Ordinary Comics@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year ago#533lemmy.worldimagemessage-square18fedilinkarrow-up1298arrow-down118file-text
arrow-up1280arrow-down1image#533lemmy.worldexocomics@lemmy.worldM to Extra Ordinary Comics@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square18fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarecan@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 year agoWell, it’s a subversion of expectations. When I imagine sneaky fox this isn’t what I’d picture.
minus-squareubermeisters@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·1 year agoI made this for you
minus-squareFuglyDuck@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoThere’s a fourth fox there. You just can’t see it because they’re a sneaky fox…
minus-squareubermeisters@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year ago= four light sources
minus-squarebleistift2@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoFour light sources on 3 objects would create 12 partially overlapping shadows.
minus-squareubermeisters@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoThis statement requires knowledge of the linearity of the light projection, which wasn’t otherwise specified.
Well, it’s a subversion of expectations. When I imagine sneaky fox this isn’t what I’d picture.
I made this for you
4 shadows.
There’s a fourth fox there. You just can’t see it because they’re a sneaky fox…
= four light sources
Four light sources on 3 objects would create 12 partially overlapping shadows.
This statement requires knowledge of the linearity of the light projection, which wasn’t otherwise specified.