We're planning checking cosmetic metal surfaces with a fixed camera, with Fairino FR10 presenting a reflective aluminium bezel to a fixed camera in a robot-presented camera station. 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?
Are we teaching our camera to reject reflections?
OscarAbbott0010 · 2026年5月20日 05:14 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
8 条回复
@OscarAbbott0010 Were those scratches confirmed on the physical samples using your agreed appearance method? Start by linking each image to a sample and its inspection result.
11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.
12分Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.
10分A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.
8分@LeahBennett0756 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
12分@ThomasBrooks0799 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?
3分@NoahBarnes0542 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.
13分@ThomasBrooks0799 Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. I can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.
13分