Bright streaks move when we present the part differently

ChloeAli0222 · 5 Aug 2026, 09:54 UTC

Reply to discussion
CH
ChloeAli0222
Our planned presenting reflective components for surface inspection in a small finished-parts production cell has Universal Robots UR5e presenting a reflective aluminium bezel 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

AN
AnilBrooks0810
Replying to ChloeAli0222

@ChloeAli0222 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.

22 points
CH
ChloeAli0222
Replying to AnilBrooks0810

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.

4 points
AN
AnilBrooks0810
Replying to ChloeAli0222

Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

17 points
JA
JackAli0254
Replying to AnilBrooks0810

@AnilBrooks0810 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.

6 points
AN
AnilBrooks0810
Replying to JackAli0254

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

11 points
JO
JonasArcher0372
Replying to AnilBrooks0810

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

24 points
AN
AnilBrooks0810
Replying to JonasArcher0372

@JonasArcher0372 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

11 points
CH
ChloeAli0222
Replying to AnilBrooks0810

Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. I can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.

3 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to ChloeAli0222

@ChloeAli0222 I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.

13 points
CH
ChloeAli0222
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

What did you keep beside each image? I can manage sample ID and settings, but I don't want a form nobody fills in.

18 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to ChloeAli0222

@ChloeAli0222 For my separate setup, sample identity, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition were the useful essentials. They let us understand comparisons without relying on recollection.

6 points
AN
AnilBrooks0810
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

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.

18 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.