Fairino FR5: Are we teaching our camera to reject reflections?

VictorArcher0359 · 16 Apr 2026, 05:54 UTC

Reply to discussion
VI
VictorArcher0359
We're planning checking cosmetic metal surfaces with a fixed camera, with Fairino FR5 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera in a precision metal-parts inspection area. 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?

12 replies

VI
VictorAdams0098
Replying to VictorArcher0359

@VictorArcher0359 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.

12 points
VI
VictorArcher0359
Replying to VictorAdams0098

@VictorAdams0098 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.

3 points
VI
VictorAdams0098
Replying to VictorArcher0359

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.

16 points
CA
CarlaArcher0401
Replying to VictorAdams0098

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

10 points
VI
VictorAdams0098
Replying to CarlaArcher0401

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

22 points
CA
CallumChan1056
Replying to VictorAdams0098

@VictorAdams0098 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

0 points
VI
VictorAdams0098
Replying to CallumChan1056

@CallumChan1056 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

25 points
VI
VictorArcher0359
Replying to VictorAdams0098

@VictorAdams0098 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.

2 points
HA
HarishBrooks0837
Replying to VictorArcher0359

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

7 points
VI
VictorArcher0359
Replying to HarishBrooks0837

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.

11 points
HA
HarishBrooks0837
Replying to VictorArcher0359

@VictorArcher0359 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.

20 points
VI
VictorAdams0098
Replying to HarishBrooks0837

@HarishBrooks0837 Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.

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.