I m trying to render an animation sequence using cycles, but soon as i import my images &quot;tried Tiff,Png and OpenEXR&quot;into after effects i keep getting these wierd lines &quot;Gradients&quot;,i want to know what is the best color management settings for a &quot;blender to After Effect workflow&quot;. Settings are in the pictures below:
If I just render the default cube it will look like this:   It is rendered with color depth 16. I can see there are artefacts consisting of visible "line strokes" on some of the cube faces.  The bands seems to not go darker and darker, but alternates between light and dark, or is my eye fooled?  Why?  Edit  Here comes a gradient created by gimp without banding, using the same computer:
I've just executed a long-running process from the bash prompt. In hindsight, I wish I'd run time on it, or noted down the time at which I kicked it off.  Is there any way of getting this information retrospectively? The .bash_history doesn't seem to include timestamps.  In my particular case it's Mac OS X, but I'm interested in general Unix/Linux solutions.  To clarify, the process has now completed, and I'd prefer not to run it again unless absolutely necessary! Factorial of 0 - a convenience? If I am correct in stating that a factorial of a number ( of entities ) is the number of ways in which those entities can be arranged, then my question is as simple as asking - how do you conceive the idea of arranging nothing ?   Its easy to conceive of a null element in the context of arrays, for example - so you say that there is only one way to present a null element.   But, in layman terms - if there are three humans $h1, h2, h3$ that need to be arranged to sit on three chairs $c1, c2, c3$ - then how do you conceive of a) a null human, and b) to arrange those ( that ? ) null humans ( human ? ) on the three chairs ?   Please note that referral to humans is just for easy explanation - not trying to be pseudo-philosophical. Three balls to be arranged on three corners of a triangle works just fine. So basically, how do you conceive of an object that doesn't exist, and then conceive of arranging that object ?  So, in essence ... is $0! = 1$, a convenience for mathematicians ? Not that its the only convenience, but just asking. Of course, there are many.  If yes, then its a pity that I can't find it stated like so anywhere.  If not, then can anybody suggest resources to read actual, good proofs ? What are the general rules regarding when can you refreeze food that was frozen and then thawed in the fridge? and what are the reasons behind them? (Hygiene? Food quality?). Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the items were in a non-frozen state only a few hours.  To be more specific, I'm interested in the application of these rules for  - Ginger garlic paste - Dough - Indian Curries - Green Chilly paste - Frozen green peas Translation help review queue? Number of reflexive relations defined on a set A with n elements What book has criminals wear a ring? I remember reading one of my father's books when I was younger.  It was about a guy who ended up getting in trouble with the law and was required to wear a ring that could not be removed and would shock the wearer any time they committed a crime (No matter how minor.)    The book was probably published in the early to mid 80s.  I thought the name of the book was 'The Ring', but I am unable to locate anything.  The cover had a car with a single wheel driving on a metal I-beam. First off I'll let you know I'm a total noob at blender I've used 3ds Max up until this point, but the company I'm working for at the moment needs me to use blender so I'm trying to make the transition over.  Literally all I'm making at the moment is a simple book and cannot understand how the bevel tool isn't working similar to how the chamfer tool would in 3ds Max.  I want a nice curved edge for the spine of the book however when I press control + B and try to bevel it bevels the edge unevenly with the new bevel pushing forward.    Is there a way I can get it to bevel evenly like it does in Max? Decomposition of semisimple Lie algebra via its roots Exercise 14.33 in Fulton and Harris's Representation Theory claims that  If the roots of a semisimple Lie algebra lie in a collection of mutually orthogonal subsets, one sees that the Lie algebra decomposes into a direct sum accordingly.  Although intuitively I can see why this is true, could anybody direct me to a proof of this assertion, or outline how I should go about doing it? Why is surface tension parallel to the interface? A text says:     The surface tension of a liquid results from an imbalance of intermolecular attractive forces, the cohesive forces between molecules:   A molecule in the bulk liquid experiences cohesive forces with other molecules in all directions.   A molecule at the surface of a liquid experiences only net inward cohesive forces   If this is the case: Why is surface tension considered or experienced as a force parallel to the interface while it is so obvious that it must be perpendicular to it? How to add a guest account without a password? Decode Base64 data in Java I noticed that some Indian languages (eg : Kannada) are not supported in Ubuntu 16.04.  See this screenshot:    Even with file names :    This was not happening in earlier Ubuntu editions. How can I enable kannada in Ubuntu 16.04? cp - cannot create regular file : permission denied I want copy to /lib/udev but gives error  cp -f /tmp/ok_pcscd_hotplug.sh /lib/udev  cp:cannot create regular file /lib/udev/ok_pcscd_hotplug : Permission denied   I am root , but I can't understand . what can I do ? Suppose $K/F$ is an extension field, and $E_1$ and $E_2$ are two intermediate subfields of finite degree. Let $E$ be the subfields of $K$ generated by $E_1$ and $E_2$. I'm trying to prove that $$ [E:F]\leq[E_1:F][E_2:F].$$  Since $E_1$ and $E_2$ are finite extensions, I suppose they have bases $\{a_1,\dots,a_n\}$ and $\{b_1,\dots,b_m\}$, respectively. If $E_1=F$ or $E_2=F$, then the inequality is actually equality, so I suppose both are proper extension fields. I think $E=F(a_1,\dots,a_n,b_1,\dots,b_m)$. Since $\{a_1,\dots,a_n,b_1,\dots,b_m\}$ is a spanning set for $E$ over $F$,  $$[E:F]\leq n+m\leq nm=[E_1:F][E_2:F]$$ since $m,n&gt;1$.  Is this sufficient? I'm weirded out since the problem did not ask to show $[E:F]\leq [E_1:F]+[E_2:F]$ which I feel will generally be a better upper bound. Read a file line by line in reverse order number of trailing zeros What are the valid characters for macro names? What is the trajectory of a photon moving through a vacuum? Since electromagnetic energy is carried by photons and moves in forms of waves, does it mean that a single photon when propagating through space doesn't follow the straight path but instead always moves up and down, up and down like a wave. If so another question arises the speed of propagation of light in vacuum is fixed meaning that it will always take the same amount of time for it to travel from point A to point B, but if a photon always moves up and down it will also mean that it travels longer distance than the distance between A and B and so it ill travel faster than light propagates, is it even possible, could you please clarify these concepts for me? Show that if $ab$ has finite order $n$, then $ba$ also has order $n$. - Fraleigh p. 47 6.46. Which Harry Potter works are considered canon? There are many different Harry Potter works including:   books short stories movies card games video games toys amusement parks web content   Which ones are considered to be canon?