We're planning inspecting reflective surfaces for scratches, 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?
What counts as a confirmed defect on a reflective surface?
LucyArcher0393 · 2026年6月5日 22:27 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
16 条回复
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.
8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
9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.
16分That clue needs a limit: presentation can also change how a real scratch appears. Movement in the image isn't enough to reclassify the sample as acceptable.
3分回复 AlexChan1081
@AlexChan1081 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
13分Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?
13分Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
16分@BrunoChen1148 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
11分I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.
5分What did you keep beside each image? I can manage sample ID and settings, but I don't want a form nobody fills in
17分For my separate setup, sample identity, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition were the useful essentials. They let us understand comparisons without relying on recollection.
17分Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.
7分Could using a learned inspection model remove the need to resolve the lighting variation?
23分@GabrielBell0627 Any learned model still depends on reliable labels and representative evaluation. Changing the method doesn't resolve unconfirmed physical defects or an uncontrolled comparison of image conditions.
18分My starting point is clear: establish physical references and compare image conditions in a controlled way. That resolves the planning question while leaving inspection suitability dependent on evaluation
5分You've settled the starting method, with inspection suitability still tied to the physical-reference and controlled-image evaluation.
11分