Our planned FR5 camera presents polished covers with small position differences. Bright streaks move, but the example labels call them scratches. I need physical references and controlled capture conditions before threshold tuning or commissioning.
Polished-cover scratch labels move ahead of the FR5 evidence
BenAbbott0022 · 2026年8月13日 18:11 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
15 条回复
Retain the pictured covers and ask quality to judge their surfaces under an agreed view.
7分Also identify the intended seating and presentation range. A physical reference can be sound while the proposed holder fails to present it consistently.
17分Don't let the moving streak decide the physical label either way. A scratched polished cover can reflect light too. You need the surface judgement independently, then a comparison that shows whether the imaging setup reveals the relevant feature across the allowed presentation variation. Otherwise someone will tune until the accepted example looks quiet and accidentally make the real defect quiet as well.
5分回复 JoAllen0331
What changes between the example pictures? Is the cover reseated each time, or does it remain in place while the view changes? Those observations would help separate the holder question from the lighting question.
24分The covers were presented with small differences; we have not isolated those changes. The labels came from the images. The physical pieces are retained.
12分Use one identified cover for an initial repeat-capture comparison, with setup details recorded. That is a cheap way to study variation, not a substitute for physical acceptance.
6分回复 Martin_Blair
Martin, that's the comparison I keep asking about too. I'd include reseating once the intended seat is established; leaving the piece untouched can give a lovely result that disappears as soon as somebody does the ordinary loading job.
19分回复 Martin_Blair
Who keeps the capture settings with those repeat images?
4分回复 Rowan_Carr
And who handles an inconclusive inspection later, since a disputed reference should not quietly become the operator's job to interpret during production?
19分I would keep inconclusive examples visible in the review, though not as settled tuning targets. Removing them would make the proposed setup seem less sensitive to presentation than it is.
6分回复 SaraChen1157
Sara's distinction matters. An uncertain surface label and an unreliable capture are different limitations, and one cover may expose both. Record them separately so a later correction to the physical label does not erase the presentation problem that brought it to attention.
19分Quality has the identified covers for assessment. I have separated pending surface decisions from capture-condition notes. No thresholds are being accepted from the original labels.
21分Will the physical review include an accepted cover with a bright feature, not just suspected rejects?
23分回复 MattCasey
It should, Matt. And once the small reference comparison is useful, keep a separate evaluation selection that wasn't used to choose the threshold. The vision and acceptance owners need to decide what finish variation that covers; these initial pieces cannot stand in for every future batch.
4分回复 Rowan_Carr
Keep the agreed holder and camera revisions with the eventual references. Otherwise a fixture change can leave maintenance using valid pictures of a setup that no longer exists.
18分