Our example images keep turning shiny patches into defects

LinCarter0966 · 9 Aug 2026, 02:35 UTC

Reply to discussion
LI
LinCarter0966
Our planned planning camera inspection of reflective parts in a small finished-parts production cell 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.

12 replies

CL
ClaraAdams0089
Replying to LinCarter0966

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.

13 points
LI
LinCarter0966
Replying to ClaraAdams0089

@ClaraAdams0089 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.

21 points
CL
ClaraAdams0089
Replying to LinCarter0966

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.

23 points
TH
ThomasCarter0973
Replying to ClaraAdams0089

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

4 points
CL
ClaraAdams0089
Replying to ThomasCarter0973

@ThomasCarter0973 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

5 points
IM
ImranBrooks0827
Replying to ClaraAdams0089

@ClaraAdams0089 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

7 points
CL
ClaraAdams0089
Replying to ImranBrooks0827

Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

13 points
LI
LinCarter0966
Replying to ClaraAdams0089

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.

16 points
PR
PriyaAdams0133
Replying to LinCarter0966

@LinCarter0966 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

10 points
LI
LinCarter0966
Replying to PriyaAdams0133

Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

15 points
PR
PriyaAdams0133
Replying to LinCarter0966

@LinCarter0966 On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

19 points
CL
ClaraAdams0089
Replying to PriyaAdams0133

Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.

15 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.