Morgan_Carr · 4 Jul 2026, 05:08 UTC
Are the pictured bezels retained for quality to judge? I would not try to decide the surface requirement from the brightness alone.
11 pointsKeep lighting changes separate from reseating during the comparison. Otherwise a better image might come from the part sitting differently, and nobody will know which change the production holder needs to repeat.
17 pointsThe bezels are retained and quality has identified a rejected inner-edge score on one, while the broad bright band on the accepted example is normal finish; the existing captions point at the bands on both.
8 pointsCan you link those physical regions to full images before using crops? A correct part identity does not ensure the arrow refers to the same place, especially on a nearly symmetric bezel.
12 pointsAnd keep the discarded captions as disputed history, outside the current reference set; they explain the confusion but should not keep voting on the threshold
17 pointsFull views now link the score and accepted region correctly; the holder also repeats its measured seat, so our next comparison can vary the intended presentation without confusing that with a loose or differently seated part.
19 pointsThat separates two uncertainties. I would now compare whether the same known score remains visible over the intended presentation range, not merely choose the image with the least shine. A very quiet image can hide exactly what you need to see.
16 pointsWould the accepted bezel go through the same range too? A good reject view alone leaves the normal surface question open.
3 pointsYes, Omar. Both need the same recorded conditions. Otherwise the apparent separation could just be a difference between two capture sessions.
12 pointsBoth did: one light position removes the broad band but also hides the score near the end of the presentation range, so that attractive-looking setting has failed our reference comparison.
2 pointsThat is worth retaining as a failed candidate, because it shows why less glare was not the acceptance requirement
20 pointsDid any other recorded condition preserve the score without turning the accepted region into an apparent defect? No need to rescue that failed setting simply because the pictures looked tidier.
6 pointsA second light position preserves the score in our repeated captures and keeps the accepted region distinguishable; the vision engineer has selected it for a larger reference study, but two retained bezels are not evidence for the full production variation.
16 pointsThen define that larger sample with quality before tuning against it. The promising condition is a useful result; its coverage of allowed finish and required defects remains the next question.
17 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.