We're planning inspecting reflective surfaces for scratches, with Universal Robots UR5e presenting a polished metal cover to a fixed camera in a precision metal-parts inspection area. 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?
Universal Robots UR5e: Are we teaching our camera to reject reflections?
BrunoBell0626 · 2026年5月11日 01:32 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
7 条回复
@BrunoBell0626 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.
16分Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.
4分@BrunoBell0626 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.
11分@ClaraAdams0089 A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
17分@IsaacAdams0172 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
16分I've settled the review method: physical reference checks plus controlled image comparisons. That answers where to start; whether our inspection concept is suitable still depends on the resulting evaluation.
8分@BrunoBell0626 You've settled the starting method, with inspection suitability still tied to the physical-reference and controlled-image evaluation.
5分