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。

Getting consistent inspection evidence before commissioning

ElenaArcher0427 · 2026年5月30日 09:24 UTC

回复讨论
EL
ElenaArcher0427
We're planning presenting reflective components for surface inspection, with Fairino FR5 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?

4 条回复

HA
HazelAdams0136

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
EL
ElenaArcher0427

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.

8
HA
HazelAdams0136

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.

5
BE
BenAbbott0022

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.

16

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。