Our planned inspecting reflective surfaces for scratches in a small finished-parts production cell has Fairino FR10 presenting a reflective aluminium bezel 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.
Fairino FR10: A fixed camera, small presentation changes, very different streaks
CallumBaker0447 · 2026年8月3日 01:29 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
8 条回复
@CallumBaker0447 Were those scratches confirmed on the physical samples using your agreed appearance method? Start by linking each image to a sample and its inspection result.
10分@RachelAli0261 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.
4分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.
17分A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
0分回复 BethChan1107
Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.
19分@RachelAli0261 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?
18分@FarahBennett0765 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.
17分I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.
12分