Our planned presenting reflective components for surface inspection in a small finished-parts production cell has Universal Robots UR5e presenting a bright-finished enclosure faceplate 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.
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.
That clue needs a limit: presentation can also change how a real scratch appears. Movement in the image isn't enough to reclassify the sample as acceptable.
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.