Expédition sous 1 jours pour les articles en stockGarantie minimum de 3 ansSupport expert gratuit par des ingénieurs agréésRemises sur volumeNet 30 pour les entreprises
ConfigurerConfigurer un système
FR
EnglishFrançaisEspañolDeutschItalianoPortuguêsNederlandsSvenska日本語한국어简体中文
Devis
Accueil / Case studies / Cutting-bit end-face appearance
Application study · Cutting-tool manufacturing

Cutting-bit end faces: expose the edge without relying on one saturated stripe

The source blue-ring capture shows a small circular cutting-bit face with shaped darker regions and a bright central strip. It provides an appearance trial for a local end face without measuring an edge angle, wear limit or cutting performance.

Prove the local end-face signal before assigning a wear or damage threshold.

  • Light in sourceLS-FLS74 · blue
  • EvidenceReal application-lab image
  • Imaging kitCamera, lens and fixture proposed
  • AcceptanceValidate on representative parts
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. Representative part geometry is illustrative, not reconstructed inspection evidence. The specimen and lighting angle are representative, not dimensions or settings recovered from the source capture.

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 catalog capture

Evidence you can inspect

Visible in the images

A small circular end-face region, darker shaped areas and a bright central strip are visible.

What the source reports

The source captions bit-face inspection using the blue LS-FLS74.

How to use this evidence

No tool specification, labelled defect, edge measurement, camera scale or cutting test is supplied. The 3D bit end is representative, not a recovered tool drawing.

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.

Source blue-ring capture showing the small circular bit face, darker shaped regions and a bright central strip.
Source blue-ring capture showing the small circular bit face, darker shaped regions and a bright central strip.

The challenge

A cutting edge can saturate while adjacent face regions remain dark.

Normal tool geometry, surface finish and fixture reflections must not be mistaken for wear or damage.

How it was solved

The source identifies the blue diffuse ring and labels the application bit-face inspection. It does not identify a tool design, coating or rejection criterion.

Use the proposed 35 mm macro lens at its printed 0.5x / 78 mm point for a local end-face view. Set exposure and illumination on independently labelled accepted and damaged samples.

Why it works

  1. 1

    Diffuse angled illumination provides a way to compare visible face and edge regions on a small reflective tool.

  2. 2

    The recorded brightness does not establish edge sharpness, cutting angle, wear depth or tool life.

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

    Cover the accepted tool geometry

    Include permitted flute/face form, finish and fixture orientation for the actual design.

  2. 02

    Use verified edge damage

    Test known chips or wear near the required acceptance boundary without treating all bright edges as defects.

  3. 03

    Check sampling and exposure

    Confirm the smallest required feature, saturation and false calls; retain any required tool-performance test.

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

Tested lightLS-FLS74, blue
Source camera / lensNot specified in the source image caption; proposed parts below
Proposed lens point0.5x at 78 mm, printed lens pair
Derived proposed field16.8912 × 14.1312 mm = sensor dimensions / 0.5x; not a source test field
Ring envelope (printed)74 mm OD × 20 mm opening × 18 mm high
Source tool geometryNot specified; illustrative local end-face specimen
Mounting (proposed)LS-BT-XZ-G-6-6045; 600 mm column, 600 × 450 mm base, glass tray and two included 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 applicationConfigurer un système