Refine inspection illustrations for subtle surface defects
This commit is contained in:
@@ -8,23 +8,23 @@ Explore camera-based inspection of production processes using reproducible illum
|
||||
|
||||
## How it works
|
||||
|
||||
The illustrations below show alternative capture arrangements and a proposed operator interface. They are AI-generated concept illustrations, not installation drawings, real defect evidence or screenshots of implemented software. Geometry and defect appearance are illustrative and not to scale. Teal cones represent camera fields of view; amber rays represent illumination.
|
||||
The illustrations below show alternative capture arrangements and a proposed operator interface. They are AI-generated concept illustrations, not installation drawings, real defect evidence or screenshots of implemented software. Geometry and defect appearance are illustrative and not to scale. Teal cones represent camera fields of view; amber rays represent illumination. The web continues beyond the image boundaries; transport and winding equipment are omitted. Magnified insets make subtle surface details visible without implying large deformations.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Complementary views of the same surface
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
Camera A observes the surface approximately perpendicular to the web; camera B adds an oblique view. Diffuse light reveals surface appearance, while grazing light can make raised features visible through highlights and shadows. Both views target the same inspection region. In experiments, switch lighting recipes separately when needed to distinguish their effects; the drawing shows the available sources together.
|
||||
Camera A observes the surface approximately perpendicular to the web; camera B adds an oblique view. Diffuse light reveals surface appearance, while grazing light can reveal subtle surface variations through changes in reflection. Both views target the same inspection region. In experiments, switch lighting recipes separately when needed to distinguish their effects; the drawing shows the available sources together.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. An alternative: inspect both surfaces
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
If both surfaces matter, place one camera and a suitable light on each side of an unobstructed span. Each camera inspects its own surface. This is an alternative to the complementary-view arrangement, not a requirement for four cameras. Mechanical clearance, coverage and triggering still need to be established.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Detect, highlight and review
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
The proposed interface displays the latest captures and highlights a suspected defect on the matching image. The operator confirms or rejects the suggestion; the catalogue retains the image evidence and review history. Optional generated descriptions arrive later and do not delay the alarm. The illustrated monitor shows the complementary-view scenario above; it does not demonstrate detection accuracy.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ The proposed interface displays the latest captures and highlights a suspected d
|
||||
| Constraint | Current scope |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Material | Carbofol membrane; exact product and surface variant to confirm |
|
||||
| Target defects | Chatter marks, shallow surface imperfections approximately 2–5 mm in diameter and 0.1 mm deep, and orange-peel texture; user-supplied examples, not measured results |
|
||||
| Web speed | Maximum 4 m/min |
|
||||
| Observed width | Approximately 30–50 cm; not necessarily the whole production width |
|
||||
| Cameras | Two: complementary views of one surface, or one per surface; interpretation and geometry to confirm |
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user