Our planned presenting reflective components for surface inspection in a cosmetic components workshop has Universal Robots UR5e presenting a polished metal cover to a fixed camera. The example images contain bright streaks that shift with small presentation differences, yet those streaks are being labelled as scratches.
Before commissioning, I'd like to establish reliable references and image conditions for threshold tuning.
@ImranBarnes0566 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.
@AmaraBell0687 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.
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.
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.
@OwenBennett0747 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.
@AmaraBell0687 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.
@ImranBarnes0566 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.
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.
@ImranBarnes0566 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.
Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.
@ImranBarnes0566 Your reason for holding the decision is clear: the current evidence doesn't establish reliable identification of the required defects.