I have been through the moving-bright-band argument often enough to keep the actual plates this time. Quality identified a faint rejected line on one faceplate and accepted the other two. We also separated deliberate viewing-angle changes from accidental seating differences.
The returned camera comparison has quietly replaced that faint reject with a much deeper scratch on another plate. It is an impressive picture. It does not answer the question we sent. How should I get the comparison back onto the retained set without throwing away any useful work on the new presentation?
Why has our confirmed faceplate mark vanished from the FR10 comparison?
CallumChan1056 · 2025年12月28日 11:17 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
2 条回复
Keep the deeper scratch as an additional example, but ask vision to return the same proposed presentation using your identified faint reject and accepted plates. Have quality confirm the relevant inspected area and judgement beside those results. The comparison needs to show both defect visibility and what happens to the ordinary finish, not just a more obvious mark.
23分Vision has agreed to retain the extra scratch as a supplementary sample and repeat the proposed views on our original set. No returned images yet. Quality also caught that one accepted plate had been photographed in the unintended seat, so that pair needs repeating rather than quietly averaging the problem away.
12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： .