1-day shipping on stock items3-year warranty minimumFree expert support from licensed P.E.sVolume discountsNet 30 for businesses
Configure a system
EN
EnglishDeutschFrançaisEspañolItalianoPortuguêsNederlandsSvenska日本語한국어简体中文
Quote
Home / Case studies / Dark residue on a bright glass field
Application study · Glass and optical parts

Glass-plate contamination: make the background bright and the residue dark

This real blue coaxial-light capture shows an irregular dark deposit on a bright glass field. The useful contrast is simple; the hard work is proving that acceptable dust, coating marks and fixture reflections do not trigger the same decision.

Prove the difference between unacceptable residue and acceptable background.

  • Proposed light housing (spec)105.5 × 46 × 47 mm
  • EvidenceReal lighting-lab captures
  • Camera (proposed)2448 × 2048 monochrome
  • Field (derived proposal)33.78 × 28.26 mm
3D view of the inspection set-up: camera, lens, light and partDrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
3D illustration · real CAD where available
Walk through this setup 5 guided stops
From component to inspection

Understand each choice.

Choose a stop to frame the part in 3D and see why it belongs in this setup. The component notes and links remain available if 3D cannot load.

Camera and available lens CAD are published models. Lens and light envelopes use printed dimensions. The linked station uses its published base size and column height; carriage, brackets, fittings, parts and spacing are illustrative. Confirm load, travel, fasteners and clearances before ordering. Light paths explain the arrangement and do not simulate optical performance. The part geometry is illustrative and is not reconstructed from the camera image. The proposed field is derived from the printed lens magnification and camera pixel dimensions; actual coverage and focus need a bench check. Representative part geometry is illustrative, not reconstructed inspection evidence.

From the demo to your test bench

Build around the parts you can buy.

Explore each component, check its specifications and compare alternatives. The proposed quote includes the linked test station; its catalog listing includes two lighting holders.

Mount the optics with intent

The station is an optical test bench, with its two lighting holders included in the catalog listing. The 3D column and base follow the published height and footprint. Carriages, clamps and part supports are schematic: confirm camera screw pattern, lens support, light fasteners, permissible load and actual travel before ordering.

Configure the mounting station →

Complete the electrical system

Select a controller against the exact light voltage, drive mode and power, then confirm camera data/power/I/O cables and a suitable PC. These are not silently added to the proposed optical kit.

Lighting application-lab image sheet

Evidence you can inspect

Visible in the images

An irregular dark region is visible against the bright glass field.

What the source reports

The sheet says the contamination is extracted using blue LS-COPA40; no residue type, particle-size limit or cleaning acceptance result is given.

How to use this evidence

A lighting application-lab demonstration. The source supplies no customer deployment, defect-size limit, repeatability study or production false-call data. Proposed camera, lens, field, mounting and spacing are not the original tested system.

What the camera saw

Cropped from the source test sheet; original test annotations are retained. Captures are not generated or enhanced. Drag the comparison slider or use the image buttons.

Supplied blue-light capture: irregular dark residue against a bright background.
Supplied blue-light capture: irregular dark residue against a bright background.

The challenge

Transparent and reflective glass can reveal the fixture, room and both surfaces at once. Residue visibility depends strongly on illumination and background.

How it was solved

The source identifies blue LS-COPA40, a collimated coaxial light. A constant-current controller is required by the catalog and must be selected against the exact configuration.

Only the clean camera-result crop is shown: the source part photograph includes unrelated branding outside the evidence region.

Why it works

  1. 1

    A bright reflected field lets light-blocking or light-redirecting contamination appear as a darker region.

  2. 2

    The source does not identify the residue chemistry or distinguish which glass surface carries it. Appearance alone cannot establish cleanliness to a chemical specification.

From image contrast to a production decision

What to validate on your part

A useful sample image is the starting point. These are the checks that turn the concept into a defensible inspection.

  1. 01

    Build a contamination set

    Use known residue, dust, fingerprints and acceptable coating features with documented acceptance decisions.

  2. 02

    Control the background

    Fix part support, shields and orientation; test reflections from both surfaces.

  3. 03

    Measure false calls

    Set a region and contrast rule, then challenge it across clean and dirty batches at the smallest required feature.

Explore your inspection requirements

How many pixels cover your feature?

Compare feature coverage, camera pixel requirements and exposure using your own planning inputs. These are calculated planning values, not inspection results or an accuracy specification.

Editable planning scenario. Adjust these example inputs for your application; they are separate from the source test and 3D setup. Motion allowance and target coverage are starting points to validate, not acceptance limits. Pixel count starts from the proposed camera's catalog resolution.

Object sampling0.04085 mm/px
Pixels across feature12.24 px
Horizontal pixels for target1000 px
Motion during exposure0.2448 px
Exposure ceiling from motion204.2 µs
Formulas and assumptions

The field, feature, speed and exposure start with neutral example values. They are not taken from the source test or the 3D illustration. Allowed motion starts at an editable 0.5-pixel example; it is not a recommended acceptance limit. Target coverage starts at an editable 5-pixel example; it is not a recommended detection or measurement threshold. The horizontal pixel count starts from the catalog Resolution row for MV-CS050-10GM(NPOE). Use the effective width after cropping, binning or decimation if those modes are enabled.

  • Object sampling (mm/px) = field width (mm) / horizontal pixels.
  • Pixels across feature = feature width (mm) / object sampling (mm/px).
  • Horizontal pixels for target = field width (mm) × target pixels across feature / feature width (mm), rounded up to a whole pixel.
  • Motion (px) = speed (mm/s) × exposure (µs) / 1,000,000 / object sampling (mm/px).
  • Exposure for allowed motion (µs) = allowed motion (px) × object sampling (mm/px) / speed (mm/s) × 1,000,000.

The exposure result is the maximum duration from this motion allowance alone. At zero speed, motion sets no exposure limit; the camera, lighting, saturation and other constraints still apply. A shorter exposure does not itself guarantee a reliable inspection.

Field width and feature width refer to the same object plane. The motion calculation assumes uniform linear motion parallel to the field-width direction and a single exposure. It does not model perspective, vibration, rolling-shutter distortion, diffraction, defocus or optical distortion. A strobe may change the effective exposure.

The target result is a horizontal sampling requirement, not a camera recommendation or a change to the selected camera. It uses the effective image width after cropping, binning or decimation and does not determine the vertical resolution or sensor size. Pixel coverage alone does not establish detectability or measurement accuracy. Validate contrast, lens performance, working distance, illumination, calibration, camera exposure limits and the inspection algorithm on representative parts. Changing field width does not change the 3D model or certify that the proposed lens can achieve that field.

The set-up and the parts

Lighting evidenceApplication-lab source captures
Camera and lensProposed catalog components; source camera unspecified
Proposed field (derived)33.78 × 28.26 mm at 0.25x
Lens working distance (spec)150 mm at the listed magnification
Mounting (proposed)LS-BT-XZ-G-6-6045 · 600 mm station, glass tray and two lighting holders

"Tested" identifies the part named in the source. "Our pick" is a proposed alternative or supporting part. The quote includes only cards marked "In proposed setup", with the quantities shown; other test arrangements are separate. Confirm colour, optics, controllers, power supplies, cables and mounting before ordering.

About this case study: the photos and camera images come from the application laboratory of the maker of the lighting and optics we sell, imaged on the parts shown; your results depend on your part, camera and set-up. This is an application-lab study, not a LumaSpec customer deployment. Source figures are reported results; proposed components require a fresh trial. The 3D scene illustrates the arrangement and does not simulate imaging performance.

More case studies

Start with your inspection requirement

Make the next trial specific.

Tell us the part size, smallest defect or tolerance, available working distance, material and line speed. Include what a good part and a reject look like.

Discuss your applicationConfigure a system