I tried a simple positioning reference on an earlier bench comparison and it helped us return to the same view. Our new FR5 cover-inspection study has a more awkward problem: the polished cover can sit on its rim or on the intended supports, and the image changes enough to produce a bright line.
Before we buy different lighting, I want to compare repeat captures with the cover properly seated. What should I include so we do not merely choose the arrangement that hides a real mark?
Yes, one rejected for a scored patch and two accepted covers. Quality has identified the actual areas. The disputed bright line is on one of the accepted covers.
I'd keep those wrong-seating images for whoever writes the operator messages too, because 'image quality poor' won't tell them they've perched a cover on its rim.
Not currently. Sam's suggestion is useful as a training example, but we cannot promise a message from the camera yet. Fixture designer is reviewing how to prevent the false seating.
Our training examples once included a failure the real screen could not identify. Operators waited for a warning that never came. Label that distinction clearly
Designer has proposed a change to the rim clearance. We have not tried it yet. Thanks for catching the message assumption; the comparison sheet now separates physical seating, observed image and any actual detection.