I am preparing references for a planned UR5e faceplate inspection. A fixed camera sees bright streaks that shift with presentation. The files call them scratches. I want to establish the physical defects and repeatable image conditions before commissioning, so students do not learn to tune around an unreliable answer sheet.
The faceplate labels are more certain than our evidence
IsabelBell0648 · 2026年7月25日 23:58 UTC
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
9 条回复
Who decided the scratch labels? Start there before teaching them.
8分I have had an example picture outlive the explanation that made it useful. Link each picture to its physical plate and the acceptance decision. Keep uncertain examples visible as uncertain, particularly in teaching material.
18分Use repeated views of the same plate. Have you observed the mark itself moving, or just a bright area around it?
13分Dinesh, I observed the bright area moving. I cannot yet say what lies beneath it. Victor, the labels came from a preliminary image review. I have asked the quality tutor to assess the retained plates.
11分Please flag the handout too. Students will believe the printed answer.
2分The handout is flagged. The quality tutor has identified one real scratch among the moving reflections. We are keeping that plate in the comparison set. Thank you, Noah; matching the physical plate to the file avoided a muddle.
21分That scratched plate is the important check now. Compare whether proposed lighting reveals its mark consistently when you remove and replace it, with capture settings recorded.
7分And do not make the exercise only about that one scratch, Dinesh. Include accepted plates and the difficult decisions too. Otherwise the class can optimise beautifully for the specimen it already knows.
18分Agreed, I focused too narrowly on the newly identified mark. Keep that check within the wider reference set, not as the whole acceptance exercise.
17分