Bright streaks move when we present the part differently (presenting reflective components for surface inspection)

BethBrooks0846 · 30 May 2026, 02:19 UTC

Reply to discussion
BE
BethBrooks0846
We're planning presenting reflective components for surface inspection, with Fairino FR10 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera in a precision metal-parts inspection area. Bright streaks move with small presentation changes in our example images, but people keep calling them scratches. We haven't commissioned the cell. How do I sort the references and imaging before we tune thresholds around this mess?

9 replies

AN
AnilBell0636
Replying to BethBrooks0846

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.

22 points
BE
BethBrooks0846
Replying to AnilBell0636

@AnilBell0636 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.

6 points
AN
AnilBell0636
Replying to BethBrooks0846

Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

21 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to AnilBell0636

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

2 points
AN
AnilBell0636
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

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

8 points
AN
AnilAli0201
Replying to AnilBell0636

@AnilBell0636 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

8 points
AN
AnilBell0636
Replying to AnilAli0201

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

10 points
BE
BethBrooks0846
Replying to AnilBell0636

I can explain the reference uncertainty better, although the example images still don't support a performance judgement. Physical classification and image-condition comparisons remain outstanding.

3 points
AN
AnilBell0636
Replying to BethBrooks0846

That follows from the reference gap. Explaining it more clearly helps, but the images still can't carry a performance claim.

20 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.