Fairino FR5: Are we teaching our camera to reject reflections?

DineshBennett0734 · 24 Jul 2026, 00:26 UTC

Reply to discussion
DI
DineshBennett0734
Our planned presenting reflective components for surface inspection in a precision metal-parts inspection area has Fairino FR5 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera. The example images contain bright streaks that shift with small presentation differences, yet those streaks are being labelled as scratches. Before commissioning, i'd like to establish reliable references and image conditions for threshold tuning.

12 replies

AN
AnnaChen1199
Replying to DineshBennett0734

@DineshBennett0734 Were those scratches confirmed on the physical samples using your agreed appearance method? Start by linking each image to a sample and its inspection result.

13 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to AnnaChen1199

@AnnaChen1199 Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.

9 points
AN
AnnaChen1199
Replying to DineshBennett0734

Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

25 points
LE
LeoBennett0710
Replying to AnnaChen1199

That clue needs a limit: presentation can also change how a real scratch appears. Movement in the image isn't enough to reclassify the sample as acceptable.

-3 points
AN
AnnaChen1199
Replying to LeoBennett0710

@LeoBennett0710 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

18 points
RA
RachelChan1131
Replying to AnnaChen1199

So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

9 points
AN
AnnaChen1199
Replying to RachelChan1131

Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

22 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to AnnaChen1199

Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. i can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.

3 points
OL
OliverAli0189
Replying to DineshBennett0734

@DineshBennett0734 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

17 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to OliverAli0189

What did you keep beside each image? i can manage sample ID and settings, but i don't want a form nobody fills in.

13 points
OL
OliverAli0189
Replying to DineshBennett0734

On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

16 points
AN
AnnaChen1199
Replying to OliverAli0189

Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.

15 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.