I'm planning FR5 presentation of aluminium bezels to a fixed camera. Change presentation slightly and the bright streak changes position. Our example set calls those streaks scratches anyway. Before commissioning, how do I establish surface references and imaging conditions worth tuning against?
Does the product appearance requirement specify how the physical surface is judged? Put that decision with the responsible inspection person before using any camera label as ground truth.
That gives you a concrete correction to make. Retain those annotations as provisional, associate them with identified bezels and obtain the physical judgements. It is not yet evidence that every circled line is harmless.
In my earlier comparison, inconsistent seating contributed to changing glare. I would inspect repeat presentation here too, once you know which physical features the camera must reveal. Not a diagnosis of your holder.
Reece, can Carla start recording seating conditions while the physical review is pending? Otherwise those images may acquire better labels but still lack capture context.
I'll collect the holder and presentation records while quality reviews the retained bezels. Thanks, that avoids booking two separate rounds just to recover the context.
Keep a few independently selected examples outside tuning when you get that far. Otherwise the same small set can become both your target and the evidence that you hit it.
Physical classifications are back. The image labels are corrected, but one rejected feature isn't consistently visible across repeat placements. Threshold work remains on hold.
Which capture condition changes its visibility? Preserve the rejected reference while reviewing that, rather than replace it with an easier defect to finish the exercise.