Fairino FR5: Bright streaks move when we present the part differently

NaomiAbbott0071 · 30 Mar 2026, 05:47 UTC

Reply to discussion
NA
NaomiAbbott0071
Our planned planning camera inspection of reflective parts in a precision metal-parts inspection area has Fairino FR5 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate 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

HA
HassanBrown0878
Replying to NaomiAbbott0071

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.

7 points
NA
NaomiAbbott0071
Replying to HassanBrown0878

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.

14 points
HA
HassanBrown0878
Replying to NaomiAbbott0071

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.

23 points
RA
RachelBrown0957
Replying to HassanBrown0878

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.

-1 points
HA
HassanBrown0878
Replying to RachelBrown0957

Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

15 points
AA
AaronBennett0697
Replying to HassanBrown0878

So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

18 points
HA
HassanBrown0878
Replying to AaronBennett0697

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

12 points
NA
NaomiAbbott0071
Replying to HassanBrown0878

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.

10 points
AL
AlexBrooks0820
Replying to NaomiAbbott0071

@NaomiAbbott0071 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.

12 points
NA
NaomiAbbott0071
Replying to AlexBrooks0820

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.

18 points
AL
AlexBrooks0820
Replying to NaomiAbbott0071

@NaomiAbbott0071 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.

5 points
HA
HassanBrown0878
Replying to AlexBrooks0820

@AlexBrooks0820 Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.

22 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.