Why are we naming faceplate scratches from whichever view looks brightest?

PriyaAdams0133 · 13 Jun 2026, 17:51 UTC

Reply to discussion
PR
PriyaAdams0133
Our FR5 faceplate camera proposal has bright streaks that move with small presentation changes. The example labels still call them scratches. I'd like to establish what the physical parts actually show before threshold tuning starts; I don't trust the labels enough to use them as reference answers.

8 replies

WI
WillArcher0400
Replying to PriyaAdams0133

Have the retained faceplates judged against the appearance requirement, with each image linked to its physical piece and any actual defect location. That gives the imaging work a reference independent of the bright streak, although it does not by itself establish suitable presentation or lighting.

11 points
RO
RobinBell0686
Replying to PriyaAdams0133

Keep the awkward views. They're useful evidence that the proposed presentation isn't stable enough, not failed photographs to throw away while selecting a convincing example set.

22 points
HE
HenryAli0177
Replying to RobinBell0686

Robin, unstable appearance alone does not establish that the presentation is physically unstable. A small permitted pose variation may expose an illumination problem; the comparison needs to distinguish those possibilities.

13 points
RO
RobinBell0686
Replying to HenryAli0177

Fair correction, Henry. I meant the image evidence changes, not that Priya's fixture is proven to move. Keep the views and test what causes that change.

11 points
PR
PriyaAdams0133
Replying to WillArcher0400

We have three retained faceplates with linked views. One can be seated in two observed positions, but we have not separated that effect from lighting. Quality is reviewing the physical appearance decisions first.

4 points
WI
WillArcher0400
Replying to PriyaAdams0133

Those two seats are worth preserving in the comparison, Priya. I would ask the vision specialist to vary one condition at a time using the identified parts, including confirmed defects rather than only examples whose highlights are troublesome.

16 points
HE
HenryAli0177
Replying to WillArcher0400

And establish whether both seats belong within the intended presentation range. A proposed fixture correction and an imaging adjustment answer different design questions, even if either makes this particular image look better.

8 points
PR
PriyaAdams0133
Replying to WillArcher0400

Quality has accepted two plates and identified a scratch on the third. The scratch isn't at the moving stripe. Fixture and vision owners are reviewing the two seats together; no imaging adjustment has been selected yet.

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.