how would the cone be illuminated by the same light source when you rotate it to point at the camera?

>>7624714 (OP)
You can use websites for previewing 3D models for this. Sketchfab for example.

>>7624723
what i meant is for the cone to rotate, not to rotate the whole scene as you did, which rotated the light source with it

>>7624714 (OP)
is it supposed to look like this?

>>7624724
Oh, right, my bad.
The answer I gave you is still valid though. If there are no online sites that offer enough flexibility in regards to light source positioning and stuff, you can still use freely available software that allows you to achieve the result you want.

>>7624755
not really, not with the a shiny black material

just use blender lil bro

>>7624714 (OP)
It would basically look like a circle where the center is the brightest and it gets uniformly darker towards the edge of the circle.
>>7624723
Basically the same as this if it was equally illuminated from all sides. You can take any vertical slice from this cone, multiply and rotate the slices and compose them into another circle. This will give you the effect you're looking for.

All this said, this is nothing more than a cool thought experiment, as IRL light is never this ideal. Such a lighting setup also flattens the 3D object you're trying to convey, resulting in an ambiguous representation of the cone. Such a setup goes against you trying to convey 3D space on a 2D surface.

Sorry for the ramble, just food for thought.

>>7624757
I'm not sure what you mean with that. Any 3D modeling software should allow you to do this.

>>7624714 (OP)

>>7624769
i dont know how can you do it for me?
>>7624777
can you make the material more like metal or latex or whatever with a lot of specular reflection and less diffuse?

>>7624778
The result will be exactly the same lol.
Specularity comes from imperfections of a surface. If your setup is this ideal, you won't get any specular reflections. Not even from the pointy top of the cone, because even that point is infinitesimally small, so it can't reflect light in a discrete fashion.

>>7624788
>Specularity comes from imperfections of a surface
thats the opposite of what's happening, imperfections cause diffuse reflection

>>7624793
I meant the specularity we encounter in every day occurences, like wht surfaces.
But yeah, you are right, your explanation is much better worded.
What I was trying to say is that if you use an ideal setup, you will never be able to make that top view specular. No chance.

>>7624788
>The result will be exactly the same
as in >>7624777

>>7624743
there would be a small white point in the center where the tip is pointing right at the light source

>>7624800
>you will never be able to make that top view specular
A reflection is specular, not a view

>>7624778

>>7624806
the view of the bottom looks so unreal, how are you supposed to draw this? It's like you lost by just deciding to draw it

>>7624803
Nope. It wouldn't. That would happen only if the top wasn't perfectly made, as in not having a perfectly sharp point. IRL cones aren't perfect, while 3D software representations are (theoretically the margin of error is photon sized).
If the dot at the top is the size of a photon, then the change of direction needed to create the specular effect cannot happen.

This is why I'm stressing out this PERFECT setup isn't useful in art, and it's just a cool thought experiment.

>>7624804
>A reflection is specular, not a view
I was talking about the picture. Top view as in diagram. You can't create specular highlights with such an ideal setup. You will never encounter such a thing IRL.

>>7624810
>>7624811
>This is why I'm stressing out this PERFECT setup isn't useful in art, and it's just a cool thought experiment.
In case you are OP. How many times do I need to repeat this in order for it to enter your brain?

>>7624810
It looks unreal because both the source of light and the camera are mathematically perpendicular to the cone, which never happens in real life.

As an artist if you ever need to render a cone that is exactly pointed towards the viewer, then the light will always have to come from the side, otherwise it will look retarded.

>>7624817
>which never happens in real life
it does with a flashlight or camera flash, so what, youre just not supposed to draw scees that use these?

>>7624821
>so what, youre just not supposed to draw scees that use these?
You can but don't expect the cone to read like a cone to the viewer. You'd need to take artistic liberty and offset the light at least a little bit to the side.

>>7624821
I think you are just too dumb or autistic to understand what we're trying to tell you.

>>7624834
i think you're a waste of space that contributes nothing to the thread and you're so far behind in the discussion you think you're ahead

>>7624821
Not true. The flashlight is always sightly offset. That's why some cope with those ring lights.

>>7624810
>this weird thing that never or rarely happens in real life looks so unreal
>gets it explained over and over
>made fun of bc he doesnt get it
>"n-no youre behind not me"
Autism/10 youre NGMI until you learn to fudge things

>>7624865
My last reply should have been a clue for you to leave the thread, but i should have known that you're not smart enough to take the hint, so i should say it outright, prebegs have no place in this thread, leave.

>>7624839
Point to my posts. Let's see how much more of a fool can you make yourself look like.

>>7624868
You are talking to 2 different people, you autistic retard.

What are you doing trying to figure this out anyway? Are you painting a cone in your piece or are you studying shading?

>>7624960
>>7624962
identify your posts, so i can gauge which of you is retarded and which is more retarded

>>7624979
>identify your posts, so i can gauge which of you is retarded and which is more retarded
I was talking about the earlier posts. In your post you addressed replies by 2 different users.

Also, your confidence is astounding, given the fact that you opened a thread which answer is pretty much beginner level of understanding shadows and light.
Which is nothing compared to your full on Dunning Kruger meltdown when we started pointing out you sound autistic.

>>7624985
>Also, your confidence is astounding
real confidence has a way of upsetting people with fake confidence that was built out of ignorance

>>7624989
>real confidence has a way of upsetting people with fake confidence that was built out of ignorance
The problem is when you can't discern the two.
This thread for example.
People that know what they are talking about tell you that this kind of setup is useless in art, because it creates weird results that border on visual illusions. This is why we often talk about artistic freedom. It helps mitigate this kind of weird situations.
You then proceeded to nag on how the result we have shown you is weird and that it should be different.

How the actual fuck do you think you are in the position to be a smartass here?
Please, elaborate.

>>7624996
there is one person who actually knows what he is talking about and moved the conversation along with me, then there are retard nodraws just repeating thought terminating cliches, like you, its very easy to tell apart

Why are you guys insisting that a mathematically perfect setup is the same as what OP is asking for when clearly they're talking about if the cone was a real life object. Like what?

>>7624989
I'm gonna call based on this one

>>7624868
I read shit in passing and you were so dumb that I was compelled to enter the thread and make fun of you. Cry more dummy, it entertains me.

If you spent as much time on reading comprehension as you do typing shit to people, maybe you could understand the cone lighting by now.

>>7625002
Just because the example used is from a 3d model.
A glossy 3D cone would look the same IRL, with the difference that it would also have a strong white dot in the centre, representing the top of the cone, because of it's imperfect apex/vertex. This was already mentioned.

>>7625011
Dumb confidence (dunning kruger) also has a way of upsetting people. Just an empty phrase.

>>7625001

No way theyre the same person, right?

>>7624996
>>7624817
>>7624806

>>7625016
he is a dunning kruger but the way he is so brash about it made me laugh. this thread in general is peak /ic/ shitposting to me.

>>7625016
And comments like this that insist that OP was asking for a 3d model (when clearly they aren't) when the response was perfectly fine for a real object? There's either some trolling happening in this thread, some kind of severe misunderstanding, or someone is blindly claiming that OP wanted a mathematically accurate cone, which any artist wouldn't use for a study in blender. Offering the base cone in a 3d program is not what would be used for a reference so I don't understand why people are trying to gaslight OP into believing that that's what they asked for, when it's not.

>>7625019
Nope.

>>7625023
Having different discussions based on how a conversation develops isn't the same as gaslighting imo.

>>7625031
To me it's clear that the thread ran away from the original intent because somebody insisted on using 3d models for a question that was clearly meant about real objects.

>>7625033
The point still stands though even with an imperfect real life cone, it still would be hard to tell that it is a cone with OP's requested setup. I guess it wouldn't be too bad if there are other cones in near it to give it context (i.e. a spiked collar). But really there is never any reason to draw a cone pointed right at the camera, it just doesn't look good even if it's true to life.

>>7625023
Also. You could make an imperfect cone in any 3d software in like 2 seconds (chamfering/beveling the vertex) and achieve a realistic result with the specular reflection.

But even then that would be kinda pointless (best pun, I know), because you would still have a weird result.
You'd want to tilt the lighting just slightly in order to achieve a better depth perception of the object.

This anon already explained it perfectly imo
>>7624806
>>7624817

>>7625044
>>7625046
I'm going to choose to believe someone was trolling because from my perspective there was a lot of shit flinging for no other reason than ego. If it was truly that simple to create an imperfect cone why not present one instead of a mathematically perfect cone at a mathematically perfect angle that no artist would actually use? Look, here's an imperfect cone from an imperfect angle that I threw together and slapped matcap onto. I'd imagine this is a lot more helpful an example to OP, because in my eyes, their intention was to see if they understood how light interacts with form rather than wanting a physically impossible example.

>>7624714 (OP)
Strong specular highlight representing the top of the cone. Size of the highlight depends on how blunt the vertex is.

>>7625053
>why not do something different from what the OP has asked for? you are being so dishonest for answering the OP's clearly stated question

>>7625058
Perhaps you would understand what I'm saying if I put it this way. You're acting like an LLM that cannot reason about user intent. Hope that rings true for you. I'm done with this conversation.

>>7625053
My first reply showed that already.
OP said the lighting and pov have to be perfectly perpendicular to the cone.
We are both cheaters.

>>7625062
If you haven't intuited from OP's question that he was confused about light DIRECTLY shining straight on the cone, and not light coming from the side (the image you posted), which is fucking trivial, so trivial that it is obvious the OP would never ask about it, then you are mentally retarded or highly autistic.

>>7625068
Given that OP got light coming from the side wrong here: >>7624743
perhaps he should ask about it.

>>7624777
>>7624806
>>7624817
>>7625053
i applaud your patience anon, this thread was a nice read.