Which UR5e faceplate images belong to the samples quality actually judged?

AmyChan1076 · 2026年3月10日 22:36 UTC

已关闭

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

AM
AmyChan1076
Our UR5e planning folder has bright-line pictures labelled scratch, but the sample sleeves beside the bench carry different identifiers from the image names. I want the physical faceplates matched to their decisions before we compare presentation and tune anything. Otherwise we could spend a decent lighting budget teaching the camera somebody's filing mistake

13 条回复

OS
OscarChan1054

Match the original images to the retained faceplates with quality, using visible features and the original capture record where available, and leave any unassignable image unassigned rather than letting its filename supply the missing evidence.

6分
AM
AmyChan1076

Quality matched most of them. Two short labels were reused for different faceplates, and one image cannot be assigned. We've separated the physical decisions from the old captions; the unassigned picture isn't a threshold reference.

16分
VI
VictorAli0185

Keep the original images as well as the corrected set. Then compare a repeatable presentation with the accepted reflective examples and identified real rejects. A tidier folder shouldn't quietly remove the difficult surfaces.

20分
JA
JasperChan1073

Which faceplates did quality actually reject?

17分
AM
AmyChan1076

One with a located scratch beside the corner fixing hole. The long central bright band on another faceplate has no corresponding physical defect. Both are retained, with their original full views and those separate decisions.

23分
AM
AmaraBell0687

Can the normal view show that corner clearly?

2分
VI
VictorAli0185

Check the required corner area, not just whether this scratch happens to be visible. Its presentation may need a different view from the broad face; include the handling needed for that view in the proposal.

20分
AM
AmyChan1076

The scratch is in frame but the holder lip hides part of the required corner. Tooling is assessing a revised support with the vision owner, using the same physical pair. We aren't cropping the awkward corner out of the job.

0分
JA
JasperChan1073

Did the revised support change the seated height or angle?

16分
AM
AmyChan1076

It changes the seated angle. We've treated the resulting pictures as a new presentation comparison, not improvements caused only by removing the lip. The corner is exposed now, but repeat loading remains to check.

13分
AM
AmaraBell0687

Who loads it for that repeat?

25分
AM
AmyChan1076

The ordinary loader and a cover operator both tried the revised support with the identified pair. Seating was consistent and the required corner stayed visible. Quality checked the physical references again. We're keeping this presentation for the wider image study; the inspection rule itself isn't accepted yet.

6分
VI
VictorAli0185

Useful result. Add ordinary accepted finish variation to that wider study, alongside the awkward accepted band and real reject, so the selected presentation has to work beyond the first two well-known examples.

15分

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: .