Our planned planning camera inspection of reflective parts in a robot-presented camera station has Fairino FR10 presenting a polished metal cover 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.
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.
I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference circular.
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.
@MeiArcher0429 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.
Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.
@HarishAdams0141 I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.
I've settled the review method: physical reference checks plus controlled image comparisons. That answers where to start; whether our inspection concept is suitable still depends on the resulting evaluation.