Our planned planning camera inspection of reflective parts in a precision metal-parts inspection area has Fairino FR5 presenting a brushed stainless trim plate to a fixed camera. The example images contain bright streaks that shift with small presentation differences, yet those streaks are being labeled as scratches.
Before commissioning, I'd like to establish reliable references and image conditions for threshold tuning.
@ImranArcher0392 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.
@VictorBrown0881 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.
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.
@VictorBrown0881 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.
You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.
Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.
I can explain the reference uncertainty better, although the example images still don't support a performance judgement. Physical classification and image-condition comparisons remain outstanding.