The faceplate images have moving bright streaks and very confident scratch captions. I need physical references before UR5e commissioning, then capture conditions that don't confuse reflection with acceptance. Where should I start?
Our UR5e faceplate folder calls every wandering streak a scratch
JamieAli0208 · 2026年8月23日 21:49 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
5 条回复
回复 JamieAli0208
Identify the retained faceplates and have quality judge the physical regions under an agreed appearance method, then repeat presentation with those decisions attached; shifting a caption or reducing glare cannot itself decide whether a real surface mark is acceptable.
10分Quality reviewed the retained plates. One broad bright region is acceptable; a separate fine score fails their method. The candidate image adjustment suppresses both, so it's not our answer.
8分回复 JamieAli0208
Keep that failed candidate with the marked regions and settings, then ask for a comparison that retains visibility of the rejected score across the intended presentation variation rather than merely producing a quieter image.
24分That's now the comparison request. No replacement capture results yet. I corrected the folder captions and left the unsuccessful setting visible as a rejected candidate, not a tuned inspection.
23分回复 JamieAli0208
Who owns the physical samples and capture-setting record for that next comparison? The corrected captions need those links to remain useful.
13分