I want the physical trim-plate decisions settled before tuning our uncommissioned UR5e camera station. I know repeated presentation matters, but the current example labels already call shifting bright streaks scratches. What small reference review should come first so we do not tune the camera to somebody's guess?
The trim-plate images have travelling streaks and premature scratch labels
OscarAbbott0010 · 2026年8月17日 18:29 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
6 条回复
Are the pictured plates still available and individually identifiable? That decides whether the existing images can be connected to a physical judgement, rather than merely replaced with better-looking photographs.
13分Most are retained with identifiers; two older pictures have no reliable plate link. I have kept those outside the proposed tuning set and asked quality to examine the identified plates before anyone confirms their labels.
13分Ask quality to identify the actual mark locations as well as the whole-plate decision. A rejected plate may have both a genuine scratch and an unrelated highlight, so its rejection does not validate every bright region annotated in the image.
25分Then compare capture conditions with the physical decisions held fixed. Include accepted finish variation and known defects. Keep some validation examples separate from the images used for tuning, or you can end up proving only that the settings remember the familiar set.
12分Quality has the retained plates now, with location notes requested. No decisions returned yet. The comparison plan includes removal and reseating as well as lighting changes, but neither the references nor thresholds are approved.
18分Who will own the two unlinked pictures in the archive? They should remain visibly unresolved if somebody later reuses them for training.
16分