We're planning planning camera inspection of reflective parts, with Fairino FR10 presenting a polished metal cover to a fixed camera in a robot-presented camera station.
Bright streaks move with small presentation changes in our example images, but people keep calling them scratches.
We haven't commissioned the cell.
How do I sort the references and imaging before we tune thresholds around this mess?
@SaraAli0200 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.
@IsaacAdams0172 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.
@SaraAli0200 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.
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.
You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
@LuisBrown0956 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.
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.
My starting point is clear: establish physical references and compare image conditions in a controlled way. That resolves the planning question while leaving inspection suitability dependent on evaluation.