Our UR5e faceplate folder calls every wandering streak a scratch

JamieAli0208 · 23 Aug 2026, 21:49 UTC

Reply to discussion
JA
JamieAli0208
The faceplate images have moving bright streaks and very confident scratch captions. I need physical references before UR5e commissioning, then capture conditions that don't confuse reflection with acceptance. Where should I start?

5 replies

YA
YasminAdams0093
Replying to JamieAli0208

Identify the retained faceplates and have quality judge the physical regions under an agreed appearance method, then repeat presentation with those decisions attached; shifting a caption or reducing glare cannot itself decide whether a real surface mark is acceptable.

10 points
JA
JamieAli0208
Replying to YasminAdams0093

Quality reviewed the retained plates. One broad bright region is acceptable; a separate fine score fails their method. The candidate image adjustment suppresses both, so it's not our answer.

8 points
YA
YasminAdams0093
Replying to JamieAli0208

Keep that failed candidate with the marked regions and settings, then ask for a comparison that retains visibility of the rejected score across the intended presentation variation rather than merely producing a quieter image.

24 points
JA
JamieAli0208
Replying to YasminAdams0093

That's now the comparison request. No replacement capture results yet. I corrected the folder captions and left the unsuccessful setting visible as a rejected candidate, not a tuned inspection.

23 points
YA
YasminAdams0093
Replying to JamieAli0208

Who owns the physical samples and capture-setting record for that next comparison? The corrected captions need those links to remain useful.

13 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.