We're planning presenting reflective components for surface inspection, with Fairino FR5 presenting a polished metal cover 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?
What counts as a confirmed defect on a reflective surface? (Fairino FR5)
OscarAdams0097 · 3 May 2026, 15:39 UTC
4 replies
Replying to OscarAdams0097
Check whether the suspected scratches were confirmed on physical samples under the agreed appearance procedure. Link each image to its sample identity and inspection result first.
19pointsReplying to VictorArcher0359
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.
13pointsReplying to OscarAdams0097
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.
14pointsReplying to VictorArcher0359
A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
19pointsAdd to the discussion
Welcome to Application Robot
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.