We've got projects that other companies couldn't do...

Recently, we have been receiving a series of "projects that could not be done by other companies".
We do not know the details, but it seems that many of them were attempted with "image sensors.

But it looks easy for what we have been working on so far with FlexInspector.

What's the difference,

• Most image sensors have not been able to escape from the "area by binarization" technology. This technology should only be considered usable when the object is small and the lighting is easy to make uniform. If the object is large, glossy, or three-dimensional, it is impossible.
• Also, lighting techniques. Clearly, the most important thing is light intensity. The next most important thing is to listen to the field. It is far more important than listening to a lighting engineer. Many people have a pattern where they can easily see something with their eyes, but they use strange lighting, which makes it even more difficult to see it. Elaborate lighting can do a hundred harms and not a single good.
• And many more.

IN MOST CASES, THE BASIC TECHNOLOGY OF "IMAGE PROCESSORS" IS THE SAME AS THAT OF IMAGE SENSORS, SO THEY ARE 50-50. HOWEVER, THE ABILITY TO USE METHODS SIMILAR TO HALCON'S STANDARD "DYNAMIC BINARIZATION" IS ONE OR TWO RANKS HIGHER.

For your information, the case that we would like to be forgiven for is "a good product whose shape is unstable and has a random pattern.
After all, if it is difficult for a person to make a judgment, it is difficult even if it is done by image processing. If you are going to invest in this kind of inspection theme, it would be better to invest in process improvement to stabilize the shape of good products.