I want physical decisions linked to these polished covers before tuning the FR10 camera check. The moving bright streaks are still labelled scratches in our planning images. Once those labels are corrected, how should I compare presentation and lighting without selecting a lovely picture that hides the actual defect?
On a training exercise we kept turning a cover until the nasty bright stripe went away. The instructor could still find the small mark because she knew where to tilt it, but the nominal inspection view had lost it. I'd retain the rejected region and accepted finish in the same comparison, with the intended presentation limits written down.
That's exactly the trap I want to avoid. Our covers are identified, and quality is examining the pictured regions under the agreed appearance method. The image captions remain disputed until that is complete.
Does the holder repeat its seat when a cover is removed and replaced? I would check that before changing the illumination, so the two effects do not arrive in one result.
And keep the original images linked to the sample register, including settings where known. A corrected caption should not erase the presentation that caused the false interpretation in the first place.
Have the physical decisions come back, Beth? Interested whether the bright regions were the problem or something less obvious was being missed beside them.
Quality accepted both broad streaked regions and rejected a fine scratch near one edge on a third cover. Sam, repeat seating at the intended contacts is consistent in our placement check. We can now compare lighting without attributing every change to a moving seat.
Does the scratch remain visible across the intended presentation range with the current lighting? That gives you a baseline before another candidate arrangement.
Sam's baseline is worth keeping even if it looks ugly. A glare-heavy image that reveals the actual scratch can tell you something a beautiful but blind image cannot.
The current arrangement reveals the scratch at one allowed angle but loses it at another. The imaging specialist is comparing a second illumination arrangement on the same identified covers, with presentation held at recorded positions.
Make sure accepted finish variation stays in those positions too. Improving the scratch image would not be enough if the same change makes ordinary polish variation look defective everywhere else.
It improved the edge scratch visibility at both tested positions, while the accepted regions remained distinguishable in the comparison. We have not covered the full intended range or enough accepted variation yet, so no threshold approval.
That is a useful result with a real limit. Keep the exact arrangement and those covered positions in the handover; otherwise somebody will generalise two views into the whole allowed presentation range.
Recorded that way, Leah. Thank you for the cover-tilting example; it made the hidden assistance easy to explain in our review. Next study extends the defined coverage, not just the number of similar-looking photographs.