简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Our scratch arrows follow the reflection across the UR5e cover images

GraceArcher0407 · 2026年1月30日 20:03 UTC

已关闭
GR
GraceArcher0407
I have stopped using the arrows as defect references. On our retained polished covers, the bright band crosses different features after reseating. Quality has identified a real scratch elsewhere. Which examples belong in the camera comparison?

19 条回复

RA
RachelAli0261

Use the physical accepted cover and the scratched one, both identified. Keep the bad arrows somewhere outside the reference set so you can explain why they changed, but don't leave them where somebody can reuse them as labels

17
AM
AmyAllen0293

What happened to the original full images?

9
BE
BenAdams0109

Don't delete all the awkward images. They show the presentations that fooled the current labelling. I'd want those in a challenge set, with corrected labels.

10
NO
NoraBrown0931

Ben, agreed, but the correct label needs quality's judgement on the actual cover. We had a wrong arrow on a genuinely rejected bezel. Removing the arrow did not make the bezel acceptable.

5
GR
GraceArcher0407

Amy, full images are retained. Ben and Nora, quality calls one cover rejected for the small edge scratch, not the travelling band. The accepted cover has the band too.

16
BE
BethChan1107

Is that small edge scratch actually visible in your proposed camera view, Grace?

12
OM
OmarChen1187

And can the loader recognise the same edge on the part? I get lost quickly when the reference picture is turned around but its caption stays the same.

12
EM
EmmaBaker0463

Are the reseated examples within the intended loading variation, or was somebody tilting the cover farther for the photograph?

11
RA
RachelAli0261

Emma's distinction matters. A deliberately tilted photo can be useful for finding a reflection, but I'd keep it separate from the conditions you expect the loader to produce

14
AM
AmaraBell0687

Our best-looking picture once showed the wrong finish. Keep the cover identity visible too.

8
GR
GraceArcher0407

Beth, the scratch is faint but visible in one view. Omar, the locating hole identifies its edge. Emma, two photos were deliberately tilted; the others came from ordinary reseating.

9
BE
BenAdams0109

Then I'd split deliberate tilts from ordinary reseats in the comparison. Otherwise somebody will tune against an impossible loading position and call the normal ones easy.

14
AM
AmyAllen0293

Faint in one view is the awkward bit.

8
NO
NoraBrown0931

We are comparing two different aims here. The ordinary reseats tell Grace whether the image stays useful during loading. The tilted images help explain why the band moved. I would retain both, but not let either stand in for seeing that edge scratch reliably.

9
OM
OmarChen1187

Nora, that explanation I can follow. Thanks. I was treating every saved picture as another example the inspection should accept.

22
GR
GraceArcher0407

Camera engineer compared the two sets with quality. They removed the band labels and rejected the current lighting candidate because the edge scratch disappears on an ordinary reseat. No threshold trial with that candidate.

13
AM
AmaraBell0687

Did they suggest another light arrangement, or another view?

17
GR
GraceArcher0407

Another view is being considered. We have not selected it. Thanks, Emma, separating the deliberately tilted images stopped us arguing about a loading condition we do not use.

-2
BE
BethChan1107

Who will check that any added view still covers the locating-hole edge after a changeover?

19

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: .