Our planned checking cosmetic metal surfaces with a fixed camera 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.
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.
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.
@AlexAdams0124 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.
@AnnaBell0677 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
@NaomiAbbott0071 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.
@LeoAbbott0014 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.
@LouisAbbott0050 The inspection concept remains undecided because the available references and images don't establish reliable discrimination of the required defects.