Universal Robots UR5e inspection plan: scratches or changing reflections?

DineshBennett0734 · 19 May 2026, 06:03 UTC

Reply to discussion
DI
DineshBennett0734
We're planning planning camera inspection of reflective parts, with Universal Robots UR5e presenting a reflective aluminium bezel 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

OM
OmarChen1187
Replying to DineshBennett0734

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.

12 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to OmarChen1187

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.

7 points
OM
OmarChen1187
Replying to DineshBennett0734

Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

8 points
BE
BenBrooks0805
Replying to OmarChen1187

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

6 points
OM
OmarChen1187
Replying to BenBrooks0805

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

20 points
JO
JoCarter1027
Replying to OmarChen1187

@OmarChen1187 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

1 points
OM
OmarChen1187
Replying to JoCarter1027

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

13 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to OmarChen1187

Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. i can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.

6 points
LE
LeahAli0234
Replying to DineshBennett0734

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.

24 points
DI
DineshBennett0734
Replying to LeahAli0234

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.

20 points
LE
LeahAli0234
Replying to DineshBennett0734

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.

12 points
OM
OmarChen1187
Replying to LeahAli0234

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

8 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.