TheoArcher0410 · 16 Mar 2025, 11:18 UTC
Can I ask who has inspected the actual bezel? Put the image labels aside until someone establishes whether there is a rejectable defect on the part.
16 pointsQuality looked this morning. Accepted part. Apparently I'd photographed an excellent little mirror.
22 pointsKeep it as an accepted example. Control what the surface reflects, then check whether a real rejected part remains distinguishable in the resulting images.
16 pointsDon't delete the embarrassing pictures. They're useful examples of false labels.
8 pointsAgreed. Relabel them with the confirmed part status and explain why the original annotation was wrong.
16 pointsWe had a board behind the camera that everyone called temporary. Six months later it was still held up with packing tape, and cleaning staff kept moving it. Whatever you use for this trial, plan how the finished station keeps that background repeatable. Otherwise your training shift will spend its life putting the window reflection back where the software expects it. I had a photograph taped to the bench showing where the board belonged, which was our very sophisticated vision system for a while.
17 pointsThat's a useful warning about the installation. For now, record the trial lighting and surroundings well enough to repeat the capture.
7 pointsWe've screened off the window for the bench trial. Much cleaner images, but the actual rejected bezel's fine scratch is harder to see now. Removing my window didn't magically build an inspection system.
11 pointsWho chose that rejected bezel, and is its scratch the sort production actually rejects?
16 pointsQuality chose it from a held batch. Real handling scratch, with its location recorded. Not something I attacked with a screwdriver for the demo.
24 pointsGood. Is the vision supplier looking at both pieces together?
12 pointsAny progress with the supplier's imaging trial? The accepted reflective part and the genuinely scratched one are the useful pair to keep comparing.
6 pointsAnd let the person who'll clean it see the proposed enclosure before it's made. Our tape arrangement started because the proper cover blocked access to the lens.
10 pointsCleaning access should be part of that design discussion. Opening and closing the enclosure also needs to leave the imaging setup repeatable.
12 pointsHave you paused threshold tuning while this is unresolved? No point polishing numbers against changing images.
10 pointsYes. Supplier has both bezels and is comparing light positions before we pick hardware. Cleaning access is on their sketch now too. The window-frame pictures are staying in the folder with corrected labels.
12 pointsLeave the defect-detection result open until they show repeated presentations of accepted and rejected samples. The cleaner background is progress, but you already found why that alone is insufficient.
12 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .