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。
AnikaBennett0769 · 2025年4月9日 04:48 UTC
Find that actual cover first. We wasted a morning arguing over reflections on a part nobody had kept. Can the person who labelled it show you the supposed scratch on the surface?
20分Cover is still here, happily. Nobody marked the area, and the person who labelled the folder was judging from the images rather than inspecting it
14分Right, so those labels are opinions about pictures. I'd have quality inspect the cover and record any actual defect location before using either image as a tuning reference.
8分Who defines an unacceptable scratch for this product? Identifying a surface feature and deciding that it fails the appearance requirement are separate decisions.
12分Quality should answer that too. Sorry, I skipped from finding a mark to calling it a defect. There may be allowed surface features we need the camera to ignore.
20分And hold the presentation still. Moving the cover changes the lighting you're arguing about.
4分Agreed, but I'd keep a few controlled pose variations in the trial as well. We need to know what happens when the presentation isn't perfectly repeated, not only get one flattering image.
15分Quality found no scratch at the bright line's location. There is a small edge scuff elsewhere. We've recorded both, and neither original folder label tells that story
19分Retain the corrected explanation with the images so a future trainer does not accidentally restore the old labels when rebuilding the dataset.
23分Done. Old labels remain in the audit history, excluded from our reference set. Next question is how much pose variation our fixture actually permits
18分Use that permitted variation in the training examples, with quality's decision attached, so an operator can distinguish an uncertain image from an accepted surface condition.
5分Nice to have the physical cover settle one part of the argument. Are you measuring the presentation variation, or is that still someone wiggling it by eye? We started with the latter and got very creative results.
14分Measure the seating repeatability first. My 'hold it still' reply made that sound easier than it is.
6分A simple repeat-seating study should give the fixture and imaging people something shared to work from. Let them define the method; otherwise a camera change could hide a seating problem you're meant to fix.
10分Has quality confirmed whether the edge scuff is acceptable? The bright reflection is now explained, but that second feature still needs a disposition before the cover becomes a labelled reference.
18分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .