Ok so i was looking at the water tutorial here on render and i was trying to take it and add it to my own art. Note that im really new at this but im falling in love with it. So i want to achieve the most realistic water possible.

So you guys understand exactly what i did i followed the tutorial and added some reflection and refraction to the hi res cloth. Then i found a ripple image and added it to "2d image map" under bump and ended up with this.

img254.imageshack.us/img254/429/test3.png

I feel like im getting close im just not quite there yet. Any tips (especially on trying to achieve the perfect color.)

Sorry, the link to your image should have the "N" flag set.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Sorry sorry wasn't thinking ok so i have changed it around and messed with it some more and ended up with this now.

img26.imageshack.us/img26/7238/test7.png

Any ideas?

I don't know how you are doing with your tests, but based on your last image (a huge improvement over your first!) I would suggest:-

a) give your water something more to refract. Perhaps by tiling or otherwise texturing the floor/ground under the water (depending on what sort of surface it is supposed to be).

b) give your water something more to reflect. A simple specular light up behind the figure would highlight the ripples better. It looks like you may have a faint bluish specular light there already, but it is hardly noticeable and does not have much spread.

Or you could set up a self-lit image backdrop for the water to reflect, or use bagginsbill's free EnvSphere dome.

By the way, your last test image is over-lit from the front. The specular highlights on her clothing are going much "brighter than white" and so you are losing a lot of detail. If you increased the light intensity in order to lighten the dark shadows, they are not there because there is too little light in your scene, they are there because you are not gamma-correcting your image. There is another thread about that, by bagginsbill.... for another time perhaps!

Attached Link: http://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/free-stuff/environment-sphere

A screenshot of your shader tree would be good so we can comment further and get your going along better toward the effect you are wanting.

Oh, and it will help your results by makiing sure that 'cast shadows' is turned off for your water plane.

Get the evo sphere. Put an image on it.

On the water, set Diffuse_Value = 0, Specular_Value = 0.

Add a Fresnel node - connect it to Alternate_Diffuse.

Add whatever you like for bump.

Render.

I put a water shader on the ground, and added Simon.

Can you tell where the 3D water ends and the photo water begins?

Quote - Get the evo sphere

I was a bit puzzled about just when the EnvSphere morphed (or evolved) into an EvoSphere, so I went to see it chez bill. I'm happy to report that it's still an EnvSphere.
:O)

As an additional note, be sure to set your render settings accordingly- use raytracing, set raytracing bounces to at least 3; depending on your shader tree arrangement 4 raytrace bounces is better.  And of course, check the use displacement maps if you are using displacement for ripples.- Starkdog

really? why is 3 bounces better? why is 4 bounces better?

This is an extreme example where you will need five bounces. In water, you need one bounce for the light entering the water, one for the bottom of the water area, be it sand or beach or pool bottom, and one for the light coming out of the water. So for good water you will need a minimum of three bounces, otherwise your refraction and transparency will not be physically accurate.

OK, now someone else will explain the physics of the render engine behind this.

(Big teasing and joking time now - nobody take offense)

OK boys, real friendly like, drop your weapons. You've been making erroneous physics claims about Poser and didn't do the Poser tests yourself, and so you're under material arrest.

My render of water above is one bounce.

Now, instead of me explaining how ray-tracing works again, you draw me a diagram that shows what you think a "bounce" is in ray-tracing. In doing so you'll probably work out why that is only one bounce.

what is different in using the ''fresnel'' node in the material room and refract?

i thougth that for glass we need reflect node and refract.

the fresnel is only for the fresnel effect? 

i think bounces are for self-reflection.
for example when you have two mirror balls they are reflecting themselfs.

The Fresnel node combines Reflect and Refract with the ratio automatically calculated based on index of refraction and angle to viewer. It only performs the correct calculation for a material that is 100% clear at 0 degrees and 100% reflective at 90 degrees - i.e. a perfect material. In real life things like clear glass, clear undisturbed water, and diamond are examples of things that the Fresnel node correctly models. Things it does not model correctly are colored glass, water with particles in it, or colored gems such as ruby or emerald.

The Fresnel effect still comes into play with all materials, but if there is any diffuse reflection, or if the refracted light is colored in any way, then we must build a different calculation using the nodes for Reflect, Refract, Diffuse, and a lot of math nodes. That is why I say you can use the Fresnel node for certain things, because it is correct and convenient. In other cases, when it is incorrect, you must give up the convenience and build a different (but similar) set of rules using more nodes.

Quote - i think bounces are for self-reflection.
for example when you have two mirror balls they are reflecting themselfs.

That is one scenario where multiple bounces are needed. But self-reflection is not the only case. For example, the refraction seen through a drinking glass, which has to pass through inner and outer surfaces two times each to see what is behind the glass requires 4 bounces.

The confusion arises from counting the number of effects implemented in a shader as if that is the number of bounces. It is not. That is the number of extra rays that have to be evaluated.

In a single-layer material such as a water plane, the shader will generate a new ray to reflect the sky, and also a new ray to refract and show us what is under the water. That is two rays, but it is only one bounce. The number of bounces needed is the longest single path from the surface we're rendering (the primary surface) to other surfaces that have to be evaluated on behalf of the primary surface.

For example, when we need a reflection of the sky from the water, the water shader must call upon the sky shader to figure that out. So that is one bounce. The water shader must also call upon the ground shader for the refraction. That is also one bounce.

Now suppose we put an airplane flying low across the water. There is glass on the plane. We expect to see the reflection of the sky in the reflection of the glass on the water surface. So the total path length (bounces needed) is based on how many additional shader evaluations are needed IN ONE CHAIN. The water shader calls the airplane glass shader, which calls the sky shader. That's two bounces in one chain. The water shader also calls the sky shader directly in some places.

If the glass on the plane is lined up so that it reflects the metal on the wing, and the metal is reflective too, then the water consults the glass shader, the glass consults the metal shader, the metal consults the sky shader. That's 3 bounces.

If you have water that is displaced instead of just using bump, then you may want to include two bounces for when the ray from one wave strikes another wave, instead of reaching the sky. The wave #1 water shader consults the wave #2 water shader which consults the sky shader. That's two bounces. However, Poser has some flaws regarding ray-tracing and displacement. In most situations, the displacement stuff is ignored by the ray-trace evaluator (not always, but often). The result is that if the water surface is actually flat, it is unusual for the reflected ray to actually hit another spot of water. Usually it doesn't see displaced waves. It might, however, see another spot of un-displaced water plane and generate a reflection of the un-displaced water plane. This usually doesn't look right, but sometimes its ok. We're getting into very specific and unusual situations now, that are not based on physics but rather on the specific ways that Poser mis-behaves.

In my case, I find that the reflections from displaced surfaces are very difficult to get right and require a lot of fudging of ray-bias, even if we only ask for one bounce to get the sky reflected in the water. That's why I usually do not bother with displacement on water, and only use bump. The reflections from a bump-driven surface work much better in Poser than a displacement-driven surface.

i made a thread where we can use less bounces when we make a cheat.

Here's a render I just did, with an airplane over water. The reality is that the water is so bumpy no details can be seen on the reflection of the plane. So it really doesn't matter whether we get a secondary reflection off the cockpit canopy or not. This is rendered with only one bounce.

The water reflects the plane which reflects the water which reflects the sky.

The plane reflects the water which reflects the plane which reflects the sky.

The plane reflects the plane which reflects the plane which reflects the sky.

Even I would not notice these unless I was doing a direct comparison.

the cheat doesnt work always .i will admit that
but maybe with some time maybe we could even do it .

This is not a gamma-correcting shader, and so I would only use it in Poser Pro with PPro render GC enabled, as I've done here.

The scale of the Fractal_Sum is going to depend on the scale of your prop. I used the ground plane here at a scale of 4000%. If you use some other prop, or use the same prop at a different scale, you will need to adjust the Fractal_Sum scale parameters accordingly.

The color I chose for Diffuse_Color, and also the value of Diffuse_Value, was chosen to match a typical ocean color. It matches the photo I'm using here. If you look near the horizon, you see real water in the photograph. My ground plane 3D water shader is matching it almost perfectly.

thanks for the shader. right click and save.

This render is looking straight down.

GC is important.

to bad that poserPRO GC has an effect on the nodes. like fractal sum,clouds,....

GC does not affect Fractal_Sum - it only affects color parameters and Fractal_Sum has none.

It also does not affect clouds either if the colors are white and black.

Note - as always, more Poser Display Units are INCHES!!!

The numbers I use for Bump or Depth Cue distances are in inches. Use my units or convert as you see fit.

Quote - GC does not affect Fractal_Sum - it only affects color parameters and Fractal_Sum has none.

It also does not affect clouds either if the colors are white and black.

it gamma correct everything. i know this. you already explained it .

It gamma corrects colors that get rendered, and it anti-gamma corrects color parameters entered into nodes, and images used in an Image_Map node. It does not gamma correct data coming from Fractal_Sum plugged into Bump or Displacement. It would gamma correct the output of that node if you look at it, i.e. you have it draw on your object. If the way you're using it is to control displacement or transparency, the data is not gamma corrected.

In particular, what I'm saying is that if a Fractal_Sum generates .5 at a given point and you run that into Bump or Transparency or whatever, the value used is .5, not .5 ^ (1/2.2).

Quote - it gamma correct everything. i know this. you already explained it .

Some of us may not know it. I didn't.

Quote - It gamma corrects colors that get rendered, and it anti-gamma corrects color parameters entered into nodes, and images used in an Image_Map node. It does not gamma correct data coming from Fractal_Sum plugged into Bump or Displacement. It would gamma correct the output of that node if you look at it, i.e. you have it draw on your object. If the way you're using it is to control displacement or transparency, the data is not gamma corrected.

In particular, what I'm saying is that if a Fractal_Sum generates .5 at a given point and you run that into Bump or Transparency or whatever, the value used is .5, not .5 ^ (1/2.2).

thats a long a pretty long answer. 
didnt you in one thread say that we can not make displacement with the buil in GC because it gamma corrects it?

I said it gamma corrects an image unless you tell it not to. If you use the image for a displacement map, then the data is modified, but it is the image that is modified, not the output of the node.

aargh!
so that's why my displacement map was inverting.. it was being GC'd then I subtracted .5 from it... I set the GC on that texture to 1 (off I assume) and it renders properly...

bingo. that was it. set the gamma on the Dmap to 1 and it's rendering the rightway round... damn I was adjusting maps and swearing thinking I'd painted it wrong...

Thank you for taking the time to show us these demos, BB.

I've been playing around with it and found a way of putting (in this example) floating weeds on the surface....

Edit:
Play with the settings to fine-tune the size, frequency and 'definition' of the floaters. Don't put the number of octaves above 8!