A small faceplate movement changes which streak we call a scratch

IngridCasey · 28 Jul 2026, 08:57 UTC

Reply to discussion
IN
IngridCasey
I am preparing an FR5 faceplate inspection station and our example images are being labelled before we have reliable references. Bright streaks move with small presentation changes, yet people call them scratches. What should I establish about the physical pieces and capture conditions before commissioning and threshold work?

12 replies

MI
MinaChan1120
Replying to IngridCasey

Can you still identify and retrieve the physical faceplates behind those images? Ask the acceptance owner to examine those pieces under an agreed viewing method. I would not use the image labels to decide their physical condition.

21 points
IN
IngridCasey
Replying to MinaChan1120

Yes, the original faceplates are retained with image identities. I can ask quality to examine them; no independent decisions have been recorded for these examples yet.

7 points
IS
IsaacAllen0346
Replying to IngridCasey

Don't swing from all scratches to all harmless reflections. A moving bright patch can hide a real mark as well as impersonate one.

11 points
CA
CalebChen1189
Replying to IngridCasey

Keep a decision per physical faceplate, including any undecided region, and link each capture to that identity. A folder called good is a poor database once someone starts copying crops into presentations.

5 points
JA
JamieAdams0121
Replying to CalebChen1189

The holder configuration belongs with the capture as well. If maintenance later replaces or adjusts it, the next person needs to know what presentation the image comparison actually established, not just which exposure produced a clean picture.

14 points
MI
MinaChan1120
Replying to JamieAdams0121

Jamie, record removal and reseating in the comparison too. Repeated frames of an untouched plate can look consistent while never testing the presentation difference Ingrid described.

9 points
IN
IngridCasey
Replying to IsaacAllen0346

Quality has examined the retained pieces and marked one disputed streak region as acceptable surface. Another piece has a confirmed scratch elsewhere. We have physical decisions now, but no repeatability result for the imaging arrangement.

14 points
IS
IsaacAllen0346
Replying to IngridCasey

Keep that confirmed scratch in the next comparison. It stops the nicest-looking view winning by hiding the defect you actually need.

7 points
CA
CalebChen1189
Replying to IngridCasey

And retain the misleading old captures as evidence of the presentation problem, separate from the tuning set. Their history remains useful even after the labels attached to them are corrected.

21 points
IN
IngridCasey
Replying to CalebChen1189

I've linked quality's decisions to the pieces and kept the old captures outside the tuning references. The proposed comparison records holder, lighting and reseating; I will not describe that plan as a validated inspection method.

5 points
JA
JamieAdams0121
Replying to IngridCasey

Who will store those reference faceplates between comparisons? A labelled image survives a meeting more easily than a small part left on somebody's bench, and future support needs both.

16 points
MI
MinaChan1120
Replying to JamieAdams0121

Also agree when a reference needs re-examination. I don't know your handling conditions, but the original physical judgement should not be assumed unchanged after damage or a replacement sample.

13 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.