简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Getting consistent inspection evidence before commissioning

BethBrooks0846 · 2026年5月30日 10:20 UTC

回复讨论
BE
BethBrooks0846
We're planning inspecting reflective surfaces for scratches, with Universal Robots UR5e presenting a polished metal cover to a fixed camera in a precision metal-parts inspection area. Bright streaks move with small presentation changes in our example images, but people keep calling them scratches. We haven't commissioned the cell. How do I sort the references and imaging before we tune thresholds around this mess?

7 条回复

BR
BrunoChen1148

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.

16
BE
BethBrooks0846

@BrunoChen1148 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.

11
BR
BrunoChen1148

@BethBrooks0846 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.

13
AN
AnikaAli0247

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

6
BR
BrunoChen1148

Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

19
BE
BethBrooks0846

I've settled the review method: physical reference checks plus controlled image comparisons. That answers where to start; whether our inspection concept is suitable still depends on the resulting evaluation.

9
BR
BrunoChen1148

You've settled the starting method, with inspection suitability still tied to the physical-reference and controlled-image evaluation.

19

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。