We're planning presenting reflective components for surface inspection, with Fairino FR5 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera in a small finished-parts production cell. 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?
@RachelChan1131 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.
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.
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.
@HazelBrown0919 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.
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.
@RachelChan1131 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.
Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.
It still needs trustworthy labels and representative evaluation. A different model doesn't establish whether your reference scratches are real or your acquisition comparison is fair.
@ReeceArcher0384 Keep physical sample identity in mind when forming evaluation sets. Different images of a sample used for tuning don't provide an independent sample-level evaluation.