Our example images keep turning shiny patches into defects

FelixBarnes0545 · 19 Apr 2026, 02:00 UTC

Reply to discussion
FE
FelixBarnes0545
We're planning planning camera inspection of reflective parts, with Fairino FR5 presenting a bright-finished enclosure faceplate to a fixed camera in a cosmetic components workshop. 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

LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to FelixBarnes0545

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.

16 points
FE
FelixBarnes0545
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

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.

19 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to FelixBarnes0545

@FelixBarnes0545 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.

14 points
LI
LinBell0618
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

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

20 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to LinBell0618

@LinBell0618 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

13 points
MI
MinaBrown0946
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

@LuisBrooks0869 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

11 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to MinaBrown0946

@MinaBrown0946 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

6 points
FE
FelixBarnes0545
Replying to LuisBrooks0869

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.

15 points
CA
CarlaBrooks0836
Replying to FelixBarnes0545

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.

4 points
FE
FelixBarnes0545
Replying to CarlaBrooks0836

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.

8 points
CA
CarlaBrooks0836
Replying to FelixBarnes0545

@FelixBarnes0545 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.

9 points
LU
LuisBrooks0869
Replying to CarlaBrooks0836

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.

6 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.