We're planning presenting reflective components for surface inspection, with Fairino FR10 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera in a cosmetic components workshop. 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?
Bright streaks move when we present the part differently
JackChan1124 · 2026年4月2日 16:03 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
7 条回复
回复 JackChan1124
@JackChan1124 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.
7分@ImranArcher0392 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.
1分回复 JackChan1124
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.
16分@ImranArcher0392 A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
9分回复 LeoBell0623
You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
9分@ImranArcher0392 The reference problem is clearer, but I still can't judge inspection performance from our example images. The physical labels and image comparisons need more work.
8分回复 JackChan1124
The remaining physical-label and comparison work explains the open judgement. Clearer uncertainty doesn't yet establish inspection performance.
16分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .