We're planning checking cosmetic metal surfaces with a fixed camera, with Fairino FR10 presenting a bright-finished enclosure faceplate 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?
Fairino FR10: A fixed camera, small presentation changes, very different streaks
SaraAli0200 · 2026年9月2日 14:14 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
回复 SaraAli0200
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.
10分@FionaBennett0760 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.
18分回复 SaraAli0200
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.
18分A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
-7分@JamieBaker0469 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
23分So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?
8分@BrunoBell0626 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.
19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.
7分