Our planned inspecting reflective surfaces for scratches in a small finished-parts production cell has Fairino FR10 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera. The example images contain bright streaks that shift with small presentation differences, yet those streaks are being labelled as scratches. Before commissioning, I'd like to establish reliable references and image conditions for threshold tuning.
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.
Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.
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.
@BrunoChen1148 A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable
You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
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.
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.
My starting point is clear: establish physical references and compare image conditions in a controlled way. That resolves the planning question while leaving inspection suitability dependent on evaluation.