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 example images keep turning shiny patches into defects

FelixBarnes0545 · 2026年4月19日 02:00 UTC

回复讨论
FE
FelixBarnes0545
We're planning planning camera inspection of reflective parts, with Fairino FR5 presenting a bright-finished enclosure faceplate to a fixed camera in a cosmetic components workshop. 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?

12 条回复

LU
LuisBrooks0869

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.

16
FE
FelixBarnes0545

I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference circular.

19
LU
LuisBrooks0869

@FelixBarnes0545 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.

14
LI
LinBell0618

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

20
LU
LuisBrooks0869

@LinBell0618 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
MI
MinaBrown0946

@LuisBrooks0869 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

11
LU
LuisBrooks0869

@MinaBrown0946 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

6
FE
FelixBarnes0545

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.

15
CA
CarlaBrooks0836

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.

4
FE
FelixBarnes0545

Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

8
CA
CarlaBrooks0836

@FelixBarnes0545 On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

9
LU
LuisBrooks0869

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.

6

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。