System for determining calibration status of a test coating

Abstract

The present invention relates to techniques for comparing test coatings to standard coatings using a unique user interface having a specific visual layout designed to facilitate the comparison process. Typically, the user interface is specifically tailored to facilitate the comparison and calibration process in which a test coating is analyzed to determine whether the test coating is consistent with a standard coating. A coating identification computer system receives digital measurements of coatings and displays renderings of those coatings. The system also displays renderings of standard coatings. The system determines a match condition or calibration status between the coatings and the standard coatings.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an apparatus, a computer-implemented method, and a system for determining the calibration status of an external coating system and a test coating via a graphical user interface. Background Technology

[0002] Modern coatings offer several beneficial functions in industry and society. Coatings protect coated materials from corrosion, such as rust. They also provide aesthetic benefits by imparting specific color and / or texture to objects. For example, most automobiles are coated with paints and various other coatings to protect the metal body of the vehicle from various factors and to provide an attractive visual effect.

[0003] Given the wide range of applications for different coatings, it is often necessary to determine whether a “test coating” composition accurately conforms to or matches a “standard coating” composition. As used herein, a “test coating” refers to a coating already applied to an asset and / or a coating of particular interest, such as when comparing a test coating to a “standard coating” (also known as a baseline coating) to determine if the test coating matches the standard coating. For example, it would be prudent to determine whether a test coating applied in-situ at a particular automotive workshop accurately conforms to a standard coating. If the test coating does not conform properly to the standard coating, any resulting repairs to the automotive coating will be mismatched with the standard coating. Therefore, as used herein, a test coating includes any coating of interest that has been applied to any physical object and / or used for comparative purposes.

[0004] Automotive coatings present a particularly challenging set of coating parameters for analysis and matching. In addition to complex colorants such as pigments, conventional automotive coatings can also include effect pigments that provide texture to the coating. For example, automotive coatings may include effect pigments such as aluminum flakes of a specific color. Aluminum flakes can provide a shimmering texture. The correct identification of such coating compositions can depend on the correct identification of the presence of aluminum flakes and the correct identification of their color. To properly compare a test coating with a standard coating, manufacturers expect to identify the components or colorants within the test coating. Traditionally, evaluations involving coating comparisons have been conducted in a very limited manner due to logistical constraints, some of which require the in-person participation and visual evaluation of all laboratory colleagues from various labs. Using such conventional systems, timely comparisons are not feasible.

[0005] Therefore, there is a need for coating identification methods and systems that are faster, more accurate, and more flexible than currently available conventional systems. Improvements are also needed in how coatings are compared to each other (e.g., “test” coatings) and to baselines or so-called “standard” coatings.

[0006] The subject matter claimed herein is not limited to embodiments that address any shortcomings or operate only in environments such as those described above. Rather, this background is provided merely to illustrate an exemplary technical field in which some of the embodiments described herein can be practiced. Summary of the Invention

[0007] A method is provided to facilitate a comparison process in which a “test” coating is compared with a “standard” coating. For example, a system performing the method may be configured to select a standard coating to operate as a reference (or baseline measurement) for comparison with the test coating to determine whether the test coating adequately matches the standard coating. The system determines coating properties of the test coating. These coating properties may be based on received digital measurements of the test coating. The test coating was previously applied to an asset. Additionally, the digital measurements are received from a remotely located coating system. The system also determines coating properties of the standard coating. Within a user interface, the system displays (i) a visualization or rendering representing the test coating, and (ii) a visualization or rendering representing the standard coating. The system compares the coating properties of the test coating with the coating properties of the standard coating. The system determines whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the test coating and the standard coating are within an acceptable or defined difference threshold. Based on the comparison and based on the defined difference threshold, the system displays the matching status between the test coating and the standard coating.

[0008] A computer system is configured to compare multiple different test coatings with a standard coating, wherein the multiple different test coatings are applied at multiple different coating systems. The system receives a first digital measurement result of a first coating (e.g., a test coating) previously applied to a first asset. The first digital measurement result is received from a first coating system. The system receives a second digital measurement result of a second coating (e.g., another test coating) previously applied to a second asset. The second digital measurement result is received from a second coating system, which is different from the first coating system. The system also displays (e.g., within a user interface) a first rendering representing the first coating and the first digital measurement result. The system further displays a second rendering representing the second coating and the second digital measurement result. Additionally, the system displays a third rendering representing the standard coating. The system displays a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating. The matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating. The system displays a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating. The second matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the second coating and the coating properties of the standard coating.

[0009] This invention provides a simplified description of the concept choices further described below in the detailed embodiments. This invention is not intended to identify key or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.

[0010] Further features and advantages will be set forth in the following description and will become apparent in part from the description, or may be learned by practicing the teachings herein. The features and advantages of the invention can be realized and obtained by means of the instruments and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims. The features of the invention will become more fully apparent from the following description and the appended claims, or may be learned by practicing the invention as set forth below. Attached Figure Description

[0011] To describe how the above and other advantages and features can be obtained, a more specific description of the subject matter briefly described above will be presented by referring to specific embodiments shown in the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that these drawings depict only exemplary embodiments and are therefore not to be considered as limiting the scope; the embodiments will be described and explained in more specific and detailed manner by means of the drawings, in which:

[0012] Figure 1 Examples of coatings applied to assets, such as vehicles, are shown.

[0013] Figure 2It demonstrates how you can use a color palette or swatch to try to identify and / or match colors.

[0014] Figure 3 It demonstrates how a trial-and-error process can be used to attempt to identify and / or match colors.

[0015] Figure 4 An example architecture configured to facilitate comparisons between coatings is shown.

[0016] Figure 5 An example flowchart is shown for a method used to compare coatings.

[0017] Figure 6 An example architecture designed to facilitate the identification, comparison, and display of coatings is shown.

[0018] Figure 7 An example user interface is shown, designed to enable off-the-shelf comparisons between coatings.

[0019] Figure 8 Another example user interface is shown.

[0020] Figure 9 Another example user interface is shown.

[0021] Figure 10 A flowchart illustrates an example method for displaying multiple matched coatings on a user interface to facilitate comparison with a standard coating. Detailed Implementation

[0022] This invention extends to computerized systems and methods for providing a unique user interface designed with a specific visual layout. This layout is designed to enable the display of multiple different test coatings and is further designed to facilitate comparisons between those test coatings and standard coatings. For example, the system can be used in a calibration setup where test coatings (applied or used at an external coating system) are compared to standard coatings to determine how closely the test coatings approximate the standard coatings, which are established baseline measurements and analyzed at a calibrated facility. Notably, the test coatings are samples of the standard coatings and are transported to each of the external coating systems. That is, the test coatings and standard coatings originate from the same source, ensuring that their coating properties (at least before application to the asset) are identical.

[0023] For example, a coating identification computer system can determine the coating properties of both a standard coating and a test coating. The system displays (i) a rendering of the surface coated with those test coatings and (ii) values ​​representing those measurements. The system also displays a rendering of the standard coating. The system determines the matching condition between the test coating and the standard coating. As used herein, the terms “visualization” and “rendering” (and variations thereof) are interchangeable and generally refer to user interface elements displayed on the user interface. By performing the disclosed operations, the system is able to quantify whether an external coating system is accurately calibrated and uses a coating that is true to and consistent with the standard coating.

[0024] Examples of technological advantages, improvements, and practical applications

[0025] The following sections outline some example improvements and practical applications provided through the disclosed embodiments. However, it should be understood that these are merely examples, and the embodiments are not limited to these improvements alone.

[0026] The disclosed systems and methods bring numerous practical and useful benefits to the field of technology. For example, the system enables advantageous visual evaluation among multiple external coating systems or laboratories that can be located around the world. Traditionally, such evaluations have been conducted in a very limited manner due to logistical constraints, some of which require the in-person participation and visual evaluation of all laboratory colleagues from each individual laboratory. With such conventional systems, timely calibration is not feasible. The system also provides an aesthetically pleasing and intuitive user interface designed to aid the calibration process (i.e., the color comparison process). By using this improved user interface, users can quickly compare and contrast coatings to determine whether the coating used by the external coating system accurately conforms to a coating considered a standard.

[0027] By following the disclosed principles, the system and method also enable improvements to the use of computer systems. That is, instead of relying on conventional techniques to estimate or guess whether coatings match or conform to each other (and thus increase back-and-forth communication, thereby increasing network usage), the system is designed to facilitate an improved (faster) coating comparison process. By providing a more accurate comparison process, fewer back-and-forth operations are performed, thereby freeing up computational resources for other purposes.

[0028] For example, Figure 1An example of an asset in the form of vehicle 100 is shown. It will be understood that other types of assets, such as low-cost calibration plates or surfaces, can also be used. It is generally desirable to determine whether coating 105 (and potentially the primer 110 applied prior to coating 105) is calibrated relative to a standard coating. Coating 105 can be any type of coating, including tricots. It is generally desirable to determine whether the coating currently used at the external coating system matches or is calibrated relative to a standard coating. In other words, it is beneficial to determine the calibration status of the external coating system.

[0029] The coating identification computer system can receive spectral data of the test coating. Spectral data can be collected using a camera, a spectrometer such as a spectrophotometer, or any other device capable of scanning the coating and providing characterization data related to its properties. Spectral data may include spectrophotometric data, spectral colorimetric data, data acquired through image processing, and / or any other similar data. The coating identification computer system can process the spectral data using probabilistic colorant analysis. Probabilistic colorant analysis identifies a group of colorants that may be present in the coating and associates the probability of the presence of a particular colorant with each colorant.

[0030] As used herein, colorants include pigments, effect pigments, dyes, inks, stains, tricots, xiralic pigments, gonioapparent pigments, pearlescent pigments, CIELab color space values, and any other relevant coating or coating components. A selected set of colorants is then advantageously fed into a formulation engine (optionally in descending order of the calculated probability of the colorant's presence in the test coating) until a formulation match is identified. This invention can use this method to generate accurate and reproducible results in seconds or less, thereby representing a significant improvement in the art. The resulting data constitute coating properties.

[0031] Several conventional formulation engines and methods attempt to cover colorant selection and formulation through various algorithms. Such techniques and / or algorithms can be based on spectral data or characterization data related to coating properties. For example, spectral data can include spectrophotometric data, spectral colorimetric data, data acquired through image processing, and / or relevant metrics.

[0032] Many conventional colorant identification kits and formulation engines employ a "brute force" or "guess and check" type of approach to provide formulation and colorant information to their users. For example, a comparison 200 brute force process might be used, such as... Figure 2As shown. The comparison process typically involves attempting to visually match colors using a color palette to determine the properties of a coating. The user compares and contrasts the coating with those provided through the color palette to determine the color and properties of the test coating. This process is often extremely time-consuming and can be prone to errors.

[0033] Another technique for identifying coating properties involves a mixed 300-degree violent process, such as... Figure 3 As shown, here, the user mixes paint / coating colors to produce a specific coating. Because the mixing process is controlled, the properties of the resulting coating are known and can then be used to determine whether a test coating is identical to the mixture. However, similar to the Comparison 200 process, the Mixing 300 process also introduces many errors.

[0034] Manufacturers typically use a guessing and checking method, or a brute-force method, in which almost all available colorants, or a subset of all available colorants, are combined in the form of all possible combinations given the number of endpoints that ultimately match the desired colorant. Conventional “brute-force” methods for coating identification (and potentially subsequent calibration) are extremely inefficient. In fact, such conventional methods can consume significant processing time and large amounts of memory to store all available colorants.

[0035] Furthermore, these methods are error-prone because they often operate on a "good enough" basis. For example, these methods do not focus on identifying the actual composition of the coating. Therefore, when calibration is performed, the results are not extremely accurate because the initial input is not very precise either. Brute-force methods iterate through all available colorants until a specific output is good enough, and then compare that output to a standard coating during calibration. In many cases, a "good enough coating" can include colorants that are very different from those in the standard coating, resulting in situations where the calibration process is essentially useless due to erroneous data.

[0036] Conventional coating identification systems, characterized by poor accuracy, slow performance, and high system resource consumption, pose significant technical challenges in the field. This invention addresses one or more of these challenges. For example, the coating identification computer system of this invention provides a significant technical improvement over conventional coating identification and formulation systems. For instance, the coating identification computer system can analytically identify potential colorants within a coating. As used herein, a "potential colorant" is a colorant identified by probabilistic colorant analysis as likely to be present in a particular coating (e.g., a test coating). The potential colorant is fed into a formulation or analytical engine inoculated with colorants already identified as having a high probability of presence within the coating. The resulting coating formulation is more likely to be suitably matched to the coating formulation because it involves more than just guessing and checking for colorants. By accurately identifying the test coating, subsequent calibration processes are greatly improved due to the use of higher quality or more accurate data.

[0037] Furthermore, the coating identification computer system can provide significant performance improvements over conventional coating identification and formulation systems. For example, instead of brute-force guessing and checking methods that iterate through the entire colorant library, the present invention can inoculate a formulation engine with potential colorants identified analytically from within the coating. Therefore, the identification of the resulting coating formulation is significantly faster than conventional methods that randomly guess or iterate through a randomly sorted list of colorants that might be present within the coating. As mentioned, this can significantly save time while significantly improving accuracy. Additional benefits are achieved due to the improved user interface designed to allow users to compare test coatings with standard coatings.

[0038] It should be noted that, as previously stated, the disclosed “test coating” and “standard coating” originate from the same source. For example, samples of the standard coating may be transported to any number of external coating systems for application to the asset. Even if the coatings are identical (at least before application to the asset) and their properties are known (e.g., due to analysis of the standard coating before the test coating is transported), the above identification process still favors being conducted at the external coating system to determine how the test coating behaves when applied there. In fact, differences between the applied test coating and the applied standard coating may arise due to differences in application techniques, tools, or even environmental conditions between the two locations (i.e., the calibration facility that applies the standard coating to the asset and the external coating system that applies the test coating to the asset). For example, samples from the same coating source may be applied at five different locations. Due to the differences in conditions at those five locations, it is possible to identify five different sets of coating properties (e.g., different shades of the same color). Therefore, even if the properties of the coating are known before application, it is still beneficial to perform the above-described identification process to determine the properties of the coating after it has been applied to an external coating environment / system.

[0039] While several technical benefits have been clearly pointed out for purposes of illustration, it should be understood that additional technical benefits can be provided according to the invention. It is also noteworthy how the article "a" or "an" can encompass "one or more." That is, although the invention has been described in terms of "one" feature, "one" element, etc., any one or more of these components or other described components can be used according to the invention.

[0040] Example architectures and methods for identifying best-fit matches

[0041] Now let's direct our attention to Figure 4 The figure illustrates an example computer system 400 designed to provide an improved process (i.e., a calibration process, which may include a comparison between test coating properties and standard coating properties, such as OEM color codes) for identifying test colors and facilitating comparisons between test coatings and standard coatings. The computer system 400 is capable of communicating with a spectrophotometer 405 to acquire initial information about the test coating 410 (e.g., color information previously described, such as information about pigments, dyes, and CIELab color space values), which represents... Figure 1Coating 105 in the figure. This data was obtained at an external coating system, which is different from the calibration facility where the standard coating was applied and analyzed. Therefore, in some cases, the coating properties of the standard coating can be determined using spectral data from a coating system located remotely, different from the test coating.

[0042] As shown, computer system 400 includes one or more processors, such as processor 415A, processor 415B, and processor 415C. The ellipsis 415D illustrates that any number of processors can be used. Computer system 400 also includes one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices, such as storage device 420. Storage device 420 includes instructions 425 that can be executed by the processors (e.g., 415A, 415B, and / or 415C) to configure computer system 400 to perform any number of operations, some of which will be discussed later. In some cases, computer system 400 also includes a machine learning (ML) engine 430, which can be trained to perform specialized operations. The computer system is also capable of communicating with remote devices via network 435.

[0043] Any type of ML algorithm, model, machine learning, or neural network can be used to identify and / or compare coatings. As used herein, references to “machine learning” or ML models or “neural networks” can include any type of machine learning algorithm or device, neural network (e.g., convolutional neural network, multilayer neural network, recurrent neural network, deep neural network, dynamic neural network, etc.), decision tree model (e.g., decision tree, random forest, and gradient boosting tree), linear regression model or logistic regression model, support vector machine (“SVM”), artificial intelligence device, or any other type of intelligent computing system. Any amount of training data (and potentially refined later) can be used to train the machine learning algorithm to dynamically perform the disclosed operations. Further details regarding the properties of the computer system will be provided later.

[0044] Use a user interface to visually compare coatings.

[0045] The following discussion now involves the many methods and method actions that can be performed. Although method actions may be discussed in a certain order or shown in a flowchart as occurring a certain number of times, a specific order is not required unless specifically stated or because a particular order is required because one action depends on another action being performed before the action is performed.

[0046] Now let's direct our attention to Figure 5The figure illustrates a flowchart of an example method 500 for providing a user interface designed to facilitate the visual comparison and contrast of a test coating with a standard coating. As used herein, a "standard" coating refers to a baseline or real coating, while a "test" coating is a sampled version of the standard coating that has been delivered to an external coating system for application and analysis. The disclosed operations can be advantageously performed to calibrate the calibration status or condition of an external coating system used to apply the test coating to the asset for analysis. Method 500 can be performed via... Figure 4 The computer system 400 executes. Similarly, it can also be used. Figure 6 Architecture 600. Therefore, when rendering the action of method 500, it will frequently refer to... Figure 6 .

[0047] It is important to reiterate that attention should be paid to how samples from the same source (i.e., a standard coating) were initially provided to each disclosed external coating system. For example, large batches of standard coatings may be used, in which case the properties of the standard coatings are defined and known. Furthermore, the environmental conditions for generating this standard coating, as well as the tools and techniques used to apply it, are also known. For instance, the standard coating may be applied to assets at a calibrated facility to determine its properties.

[0048] A portion of the batch can then be delivered to any number of external coating systems. This delivered “test” coating is then applied to the asset at the external facility, as described in more detail later. After the test coating is applied, tools (e.g., a spectrophotometer) can be used to determine the properties of the test coating when applied at the specific external coating system. If the “conditions” at the external coating system (which include environmental conditions, tools, techniques, etc.) are consistent with the conditions present when applying and analyzing the standard coating, the properties of the applied test coating should adequately match (e.g., within a threshold) those properties of the standard coating when applied and analyzed at the corresponding facility (e.g., a so-called “calibrated facility”). The deviation between the properties of the applied test coating (e.g., applied at an external coating system) and the properties of the standard coating (e.g., applied at a calibrated facility) represents differences in any of the multiple factors or conditions, such as environmental factors, application factors, or technical and / or asset or tool factors. By identifying such deviations, corrections can then be made to bring the conditions at the external coating system into line with those at the calibrated facility, thereby ensuring that any subsequent coatings applied at the external coating system will be applied in the calibrated scene or environment.

[0049] Based on this understanding, method 500 includes the action of selecting a standard coating to operate as a reference for comparison with the test coating in order to determine whether the test coating adequately matches the standard coating (action 505). For example, the test coating may be a sampled version of a batch coating produced at a calibrated facility and used as a reference for comparison. That is, the test coating is identical to the standard coating (at least before being applied to the asset), but those test coatings were applied at different facilities. The test coating (sampled from the batch coating) can be transported to any number of external coating systems and then applied to the asset. If the conditions are the same between the different facilities, the test coating should adequately match the standard coating (e.g., within a threshold amount) because both coatings originate from the same source (i.e., the batch coating). The difference between the test coating and the standard coating indicates that the equipment and / or environmental conditions (or some other characteristic) at the external coating system lack calibration relative to the calibrated facility. Once this information is known, an operation can then be performed to bring the external coating system into calibration.

[0050] For example, Figure 6 The analysis engine 605 can select a standard coating 610 from storage device 615, or more precisely, from database 620 stored in storage device 615. The standard coating 610 may have a barcode, QR code, and / or other identifier stored in database 620. The selection process can be guided by user input or it can be performed automatically. A portion of this standard coating 610 can then be delivered to any number of external coating systems for calibration determination. Additionally, the standard coating can be applied to an asset and then analyzed to determine its coating properties.

[0051] When a calibration test is desired to determine whether the received properties of the test coating (sampled from a standard coating and transported to an external coating system) match those of the standard coating, the user can select a standard coating. Standard coatings can also be selected automatically, and samples can be automatically delivered and used as test coatings for analysis. Therefore, any standard coating can be used and sampled, and samples can be delivered for use as test coatings.

[0052] Return to Figure 5 Action 510 includes determining the coating properties of the test coating. For example, the coating properties of the test coating may be based on received digital measurements from a test coating previously applied to the asset. Digital measurements may include, but are not limited to, raw physical measurements, predicted measurements, spectral measurements, or other colorimetric measurements, including but not limited to CIELab (i.e., L...). a b Color space values, spectrophotometer readings, RGB, γ-RGB values, trichoat and / or XYZ tristimulus data. These measurement results can be obtained using the identification techniques mentioned earlier.

[0053] With additional details, a standard coating can be selected during the calibration event. The system can then request an external system to analyze the test coating, where it will be reviewed and analyzed to determine whether the external coating system's use or application of the test coating is sufficiently consistent with or calibrated relative to the way the standard coating is applied to the asset at the calibrated facility. For this purpose, digital measurements of the (applied) test coating are received from the remotely located or external coating system. Similarly, digital measurements of the (applied) standard coating are obtained in a manner similar to those previously described and received for analysis.

[0054] exist Figure 4 In this system, computer system 400 can communicate with spectrophotometer 405 via network 435. Spectrophotometer 405 can operate on assets (e.g., vehicles) to acquire digital measurements of test coatings (or standard coatings). In some cases, the coating may be applied to a test calibration plate or surface (for calibration events) rather than a high-cost asset such as a vehicle.

[0055] Alternatively, digital measurement results may have been collected at a previous point in time and may have already been stored in a database and associated with or matched to an asset or specific coating. The computer system 400 can then communicate with the database, which may be remote or local, to acquire measurement information. The digital measurement results contain a digital version or a rendering of the properties of the test coating. Such measurement results may include paint color characteristics as well as texture characteristics, such as possible flake content (e.g., aluminum flakes for a glitter effect) and / or other texture features of the test coating. In this regard, the computer system is capable of obtaining digital measurements reflecting complex colorants in the test coating, such as pigments, dyes, inks, pigment effects, texturing, CIELab color space values, tricot values, etc. Such data can be obtained from… Figure 4 The spectrophotometer described herein is provided.

[0056] refer to Figure 6 Architecture 600 is shown as including a remotely positioned coating system 625. The coating system 625 can be located in a paint shop or any other type of facility. As shown, the coating system 625 can be used to analyze a test coating 630, which represents the previously mentioned test coating. Although Figure 6Not shown, but the coating system 625 may include a spectrophotometer that can be used to obtain digital measurement results 635 of the test coating 630. Additionally, the coating system 625 can obtain environmental condition data 640 detailing the environmental conditions for obtaining the digital measurement results 635. Examples of environmental data include, but are not limited to, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, altitude, etc. Such environmental conditions can affect the properties of the test coating 630 (e.g., application, appearance, etc.). Because the test coating 630 is a sampled version of a selected standard coating, differences between the test coating 630 and the standard coating indicate that the tools, application techniques, and / or environmental conditions of the coating system 625 are not as they should be (i.e., lack of calibration). By identifying such differences, the embodiment can then trigger a calibration event in the coating system 625 so that subsequent application of the test coating 630 will be consistent with the standard coating.

[0057] Figure 6 A second coating system 645 is shown. Similar to coating system 625, coating system 645 is capable of analyzing test coating 650 to obtain digital measurement results 655 and environmental condition data 660, as well as other data such as tooling and application techniques. Notably, test coating 650 is also a sampled version of the standard coating. That is, test coating 630 and test coating 650 both originate from the same source and are transported to different external facilities to determine how those test coatings compare to the standard coating when applied at those different coating systems.

[0058] The analysis engine 605 can communicate with any number of coating systems to acquire digital measurement results, environmental condition data, and any other available data. During calibration events, the analysis engine 605 can prompt external coating systems (e.g., coating systems 625 and 645) to provide data about the coating samples to be tested (e.g., test coatings) or analyze the coating samples to determine whether those samples are sufficiently consistent with or match the selected standard coatings.

[0059] Return to Figure 5 Method 500 further includes the action of determining the coating properties of a standard coating (action 515). For example, the standard coating may have already been applied at a calibrated facility where the application technique, environmental conditions, and even the tools used have been calibrated and set to desired values. "Conditions" (e.g., technique, environmental conditions, tools, etc.) affect how the standard coating is applied. It is desirable to have these same or similar conditions at the external coating system to ensure consistent results at different locations.

[0060] Using additional information, a test coating, serving as a standard coating, is applied to the asset and then analyzed at an external coating system. Therefore, the coating properties of the test coating can be obtained using environmental tools, spectrophotometers, application tools, etc. Similarly, the coating properties of a standard coating can be determined by obtaining relevant information (e.g., applying a standard coating to the asset and then analyzing it at a calibrated facility).

[0061] Then, action 520 involves displaying (within the user interface) (i) a visualization or rendering representing the test coating (e.g., possibly a 3D visualization or rendering), and (ii) a visualization or rendering representing the standard coating (e.g., possibly a 3D visualization or rendering). In some cases, the visualization or rendering has a surface coated with the coating, and said surface is visualized or rendered as a curved surface representing an asset (e.g., a vehicle or calibration plate or surface) on which the test coating was previously applied, or more simply, the visualization or rendering of the surface includes a visualization or rendering of an asset (e.g., a vehicle at an external coating system that presents digital measurements of the test coating) on ​​which the test coating was previously applied. The visualization or rendering may also be visualized, displayed, or rendered as a three-dimensional (3D) surface with curved features. Figure 7 Example illustrations of the user interface are provided.

[0062] Specifically, Figure 7 A user interface 700 is shown, which displays a standard coating render 705 having coating properties 710, a coating render 715 having coating properties 720 (e.g., a "test" coating), and a coating render 725 having coating properties 730 (e.g., another "test" coating). It should be noted that coating render 715 (e.g., a "first" render), coating render 725 (e.g., a "second" render), and standard coating render 705 (e.g., a "third" render) are displayed close to each other.

[0063] For the purpose of "proximity," user interface elements are positioned within a certain number of pixels relative to another element and / or within a specific screen distance relative to said other element. Proximity can potentially vary based on the size of the screen used. For example, with larger screen sizes, the system can optionally adjust the proximity threshold to allow user interface elements to be positioned further away than they would be positioned with a smaller screen size. Therefore, it is possible (though not always) that proximity depends on the size of the screen on which the user interface is displayed.

[0064] Coating properties 710, 720, and 730 may include digital measurement results 735 or measurement results representing the aforementioned spectrophotometric data, as well as any other information (e.g., environmental data during application, tools used during application, etc.). For example, coating properties 710, 720, and 730 may include color characteristics, flake properties 740, undercoat properties, CIELab color space values ​​(e.g., color can be expressed in terms of perceived brightness, red, green, blue, and yellow), etc. Coating properties 710, 720, and 730 may also include environmental data detailing when and under what conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, altitude, etc.) the coating was applied. Coating properties 710, 720, and 730 may include any other type of coating property, such as pigment, dye, and flake property 740 (e.g., aluminum, organic mixtures, artificial mica, etc.).

[0065] From Figure 7 The coating properties 720 and 730 shown describe the properties of the "test coating". Similarly, coating property 710 describes the properties of the "standard coating". If a remotely located or external coating system has been calibrated, the properties of the test coating should be consistent with those of the standard coating (e.g., within thresholds relative to each other), because the test coating is a sampled version of the standard coating and therefore (under preferred conditions) there should be no differences between those coatings (or only minor differences less than the threshold). Deviations between properties indicate differences between application techniques, assets, environmental conditions, tools, etc.

[0066] exist Figure 5 In this process, action 525 involves comparing the coating properties of the test coating with those of a standard coating. This comparison can be made by comparing the coating properties of the test coating, such as numerical measurements, with those of the standard coating. As noted above, differences between those properties indicate that the external coating system lacks calibration relative to the facility where the standard coating is applied to the asset and analyzed.

[0067] Action 530 involves determining whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the test coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold. If the characteristics / properties of the test coating are sufficiently close to those of the standard coating (e.g., within the determined threshold), it can be determined that the external coating system has been adequately calibrated relative to a calibrated facility in which the standard coating is analyzed. On the other hand, if there is a sufficiently large deviation (e.g., the result exceeds the threshold), it can be determined that the external coating system has not been calibrated relative to a calibrated facility.

[0068] Figure 6This illustrates how the analysis engine 605 can analyze the coating properties 665 of different coatings (e.g., a standard coating versus a test coating). The analysis engine 605 is also able to consider a threshold 670 when performing a comparison process. For example, if the coating properties of the test coating are within an acceptable threshold 670 defined relative to the coating properties of the standard coating, the analysis engine 605 will determine that the coating system used / applied / analyzed for that particular test coating is adequately matched to or calibrated relative to the calibrated facility used / applied / analyzed for that standard coating.

[0069] Based on the comparison and based on an acceptable / limited difference threshold, Figure 5 Action 535 includes displaying the matching status between the test coating and the standard coating. The matching status indicates that the external coating system has been calibrated relative to the calibrated facility.

[0070] Figure 6 This illustrates how the analysis engine 605 can determine whether the coatings match and then generate a match status 675. If the coatings match sufficiently (e.g., within a threshold 670 relative to each other), the match status 675 will reflect a "matched" status or possibly a "calibrated" status. On the other hand, if the coatings do not match sufficiently, the match status 675 will reflect a "mismatched" status or possibly a "uncalibrated" status. Of course, other status metrics can also be used. In some cases, the analysis engine 605 will provide numerical metrics, such as possible percentage values, to reflect how closely the test coating matches the standard coating. For example, there might be a situation where one test coating matches the standard coating 97%, while another test coating matches the standard coating only 92%.

[0071] To be considered "matched" or "calibrated," the corresponding parameters of the test coating must be within the threshold values ​​of the corresponding parameters identified for the standard coating, or more precisely. For example, suppose the actual red value of the standard coating is "x". A threshold can be set such that if the red value of the test coating is within ± the threshold value of the standard coating, the test coating will be listed as a full match to the standard coating.

[0072] In some cases, a threshold (e.g., a “defined difference threshold”) can be set to 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 10%, or greater than 10% of the actual value (or any value in between), whatever that value may be. For example, if the property of the test coating is within ±1% of the actual value, there may be cases where the property of the test coating is within the defined difference threshold. Similar thresholds can be set for other properties.

[0073] A value may exceed a threshold, but the average of the properties of all test coatings can fall well within the average threshold of the properties of all actual standard coatings. In a simplified example, assume the test coating has the following properties: 1% of the red pigment in the standard coating (i.e., the red pigment in the test coating matches the red pigment in the standard coating by 99%) and 0.1% of the blue pigment in the standard coating (i.e., the blue pigment in the test coating matches the blue pigment in the standard coating by 99.9%). It is also assumed that the threshold is set to ±0.8%; this means that if the combined properties of the test coating are within ±0.8% of the combined properties of the standard coating, the test coating will be marked or labeled as matching the standard coating.

[0074] Taking the average of the parameters of the test coating will yield the following average: (1% + 0.1%) / 2 = 0.55%. In this example case, an average of 0.55% is within the threshold of ± 0.8%, therefore the test coating will be marked as a match. Of course, this is just one example, and other techniques can be used to determine whether the test coating is a sufficient match to the standard coating.

[0075] In some cases, such as Figure 7 As shown, the user interface can display the properties of various test coatings. The user interface can sort these test coatings based on how closely their properties resemble those of a standard coating. That is, a sorted list of test coatings can be displayed via the user interface. The user can then review the sorted list to determine which corresponding external coating systems or facilities have been calibrated or not relative to calibrated facilities used to analyze the standard coating. Systems that deviate significantly from their expected performance and are ranked lower can optionally be prioritized for calibration.

[0076] Optionally, the system can trigger a calibration event that attempts to modify parameters or conditions at the external coating system to bring the conditions at the external coating system into calibration performed using a calibrated facility that analyzes a standard coating. That is, the system can generate... Figure 6 A set of calibration parameters 680 is provided, which can be used by the coating system 625 to modify the conditions involved in applying a coating at the location. The calibration parameters 680 may describe the environmental conditions that should be changed, the tools that should be used (and the calibration status or maintenance of those tools), the techniques that should be followed when applying the coating, the location of the coating application, or any other properties that should be modified to ensure that subsequent applications of the test coating are consistent with the standard coating. The calibration parameters may change or modify any variables that cause inconsistencies between the external coating system and the calibrated facility.

[0077] Figure 6A second matching condition 685 and a second set of calibration parameters 690 related to coating system 645 are shown. In this respect, analysis engine 605 can analyze coatings from multiple different coating systems.

[0078] User interface 700 illustrates how indication 745 can be provided, wherein indication 745 can reflect the matching status mentioned in action 535. Additionally, user interface 700 can display a set of calibration parameters, as shown by calibration parameters 750 and 755.

[0079] Therefore, the system can generate a notification or instruction indicating a set of calibration parameters that, when implemented, modify any number of conditions associated with applying a test coating to the asset at an external coating system to ensure that subsequent application of the test coating is consistent with the standard coating.

[0080] Figure 8 An example user interface 800 is shown, which includes a 3D rendering 805 of a vehicle 810 with a curved surface 815. The curved surface 815 is currently coated using a standard coating.

[0081] User interface 800 also displays coating render 820 and coating render 835, the former showing a curved surface coated with one of the test coatings, and the latter showing a curved surface coated with different test coatings. Following the principles discussed above, user interface 800 can be updated to reflect the matching status between the test coatings and the standard coatings. For example, matching status 830 is shown with a positive checkbox indicating that the coating associated with coating render 820 matches the standard coating sufficiently (as determined using the thresholds mentioned earlier). On the other hand, matching status 835 is shown with a negative "x" box indicating that the coating associated with coating render 825 does not match the standard coating sufficiently.

[0082] In some cases, the matching status can include a mathematical representation of the difference between the coating properties of the test coating and the coating properties of the standard coating. For example, a user interface can display the difference between digital measurements of the standard coating and the test coating. The difference can reflect absolute value differences and / or percentage differences (e.g., how closely the test coating is calibrated or matched, or how far the test coating deviates from the standard). In some cases, the matching status can include differences in environmental conditions, differences in the tools used, or even differences in the techniques used regarding how the test coating is applied to the asset and how the standard coating is applied to the asset. Optionally, the mathematical representation can include RGB color space values, CIELab color space values, CMYK color space values, HSV color space values, HSL color space values, and so on. For example, in the RGB color space, a hue of the color red can be represented as the mathematical value [189 99 91], while in the CIELab color space, the same hue of the color red can be represented as the mathematical value [52.2540 34.8412 21.3002]. In the CMYK color space, the same hue of the color red can be represented by the mathematical values ​​[0% 48% 52% 26%]. Similarly, in the HSV color space, the same hue of red can be represented by the mathematical values ​​[5% 52% 74%]. Furthermore, in the HSL color space, the same hue of red can be represented by the mathematical values ​​[5% 43% 55%]. Therefore, colors can be represented using mathematical values ​​within defined color spaces.

[0083] Now let's direct our attention to Figure 9 and 10 The diagram illustrates additional instances of the user interface and example methods. The properties of this user interface can be related to... Figure 7 Example user interface 700 combinations. For clarity, any feature of any user interface described herein may be combined with any other one or more features of the disclosed user interfaces, and no disclosed user interface is mutually exclusive with respect to each other.

[0084] Figure 9An example user interface 900 is shown, displaying a 3D preview of a vehicle 905 coated with a standard coating. Two other vehicles illustrated are coated with a test coating. In this user interface 900, the user can manipulate vehicle 905 (and any other vehicles), as shown by object 3D rotation 910. That is, the user can use a cursor or finger (in the case of a touchscreen) to touch the vehicle and move it in different directions, and also zoom in or out. The vehicle can be moved in any direction, allowing different parts of the vehicle to be exposed. In this respect, the vehicle rendering is a three-dimensional (3D) rendering, which is movable to visually depict different angles of the vehicle. Therefore, the 3D rendering of the vehicle is fully rotatable. Such features can be used during calibration events to determine whether the test coating visually matches the standard coating, especially when viewed from different angles.

[0085] Figure 9 Options for modifying the light source position 915 are also shown. For example, in one example scenario, the light source might be positioned at an angle at the front of one of the vehicles. The light source can be moved to different locations, such as above the top of the vehicle, to the side of the vehicle, to the rear of the vehicle, or to any other location. The separation distance between the light source and the vehicle can also be modified, such as far separation or near separation. Therefore, the position, placement, angle, and distance of the light source relative to the vehicle can be modified to facilitate consistency and calibration processes. By modifying the light source in this way, the user can observe how the standard coating and / or test coating perform under different conditions.

[0086] Figure 9 Options for adding (or removing) one or more light sources are also shown (e.g., adding light source 920). For example, there might be an existing light source positioned at the front of the vehicle. By selecting Add Light Source 920, the user can add (or remove) one or more light sources to facilitate the consistency and calibration process. A second light source can be added to the 3D preview of the vehicle (or any vehicle). This second light source might be positioned at the rear of the vehicle.

[0087] Figure 9 Options for modifying the light source type 925 are also shown. By selecting this option, the user can modify various properties of the light source to facilitate the calibration process. For example, the user can modify the color of the light source. The user can also modify the brightness. The user can also modify the type of illumination, such as using an incandescent bulb or an LED light. The user can also modify whether to use a floodlight type of light (i.e., light that illuminates a given area broadly) or a spotlight type of light (i.e., light that is focused to illuminate a specific area).

[0088] The various user interface features mentioned above facilitate the comparison and calibration processes described herein. In fact, by providing visual indications of the coatings, users can visually compare and contrast different coatings. Such comparisons can also aid the comparison process and facilitate user participation in the process.

[0089] Now let's direct our attention to Figure 10 The figure illustrates a flowchart of an example method 1000 for visually displaying multiple different test coatings on a user interface to facilitate comparison with a standard coating. This comparison can be used to determine whether a test coating applied at an external coating system adequately matches a standard coating applied at a calibrated facility. In doing so, embodiments can determine whether conditions at the external coating system are calibrated relative to conditions at the calibrated facility. Notably, multiple different test coatings are received and tested at multiple different coating systems to determine their conformity to a standard coating. Method 1000 can be... Figure 6 It can be implemented using the architecture 600 and any user interface shown so far.

[0090] Method 1000 includes the action (action 1005) of receiving a first digital measurement result of a first coating previously applied to a first asset at a first coating system. In some cases, the asset is a vehicle, while in others, the asset is a calibration plate or surface.

[0091] The first coating should presuppose a match with the standard coating, since the first coating is a sample of the standard coating. As discussed, the system can select a standard coating, obtain samples of the standard coating, transport those samples to any number of external coating systems, and then notify the external coating systems that a calibration event will be performed using the provided samples. The system can instruct the external coating systems to submit the properties of a sample of the applied test coating (e.g., the aforementioned "first" coating), and preferably, the test coating should match or conform to the standard coating. If this is not the case, the external coating system has not calibrated the calibrated facility relative to the standard coating. In this respect, the test coating can be considered a "control factor" and can be analyzed to determine whether the test coating is indeed consistent with the standard coating.

[0092] Receive a first digital measurement result from the first coating system. For example, Figure 6 The test coating 630 may represent the first coating. The process of receiving the first digital measurement result may further include receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the first coating system is located or applied.

[0093] In parallel or sequentially with action 1005, there is action 1010 that receives a second digital measurement result of a second coating previously applied to a second asset (e.g., a vehicle, calibration plate, or surface) at a second coating system. The second coating should also be assumed to match a standard coating, as the second coating is another sample of the standard coating. The second digital measurement result is received from a second coating system, which differs from the first coating system. Test coating 650 may represent the second coating. The first coating, second coating, and standard coating all originate from the same coating source, making their coating properties identical before application to the asset. However, after those coatings are applied to the asset, those properties may change (e.g., due to differences in conditions in different facilities).

[0094] The process of receiving the second digital measurement result may further include receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the second coating system is positioned or applied. Advantageously, the disclosed system is capable of performing calibration events for multiple external coating systems simultaneously, enabling the parallel execution of multiple calibration events. Although only two such calibration or comparison events have been described above, it should be understood that more than two events can be performed in parallel with each other.

[0095] The method then describes the various actions for displaying information within the user interface. For example, action 1015 involves displaying a first rendering representing the first coating (and a first digital measurement result of the first coating) in the user interface. (See reference...) Figure 7 The coating rendering 715 may represent a first rendering showing the first coating. The user interface 700 also displays digital measurements of the coating, or more precisely, coating properties 720. In some cases, the first rendering includes a first three-dimensional rendering in which the first coating is applied to a first curved surface.

[0096] Action 1020 involves displaying a second rendering (and a second digital measurement result of the second coating) representing the second coating in the user interface. Figure 7 In this context, coating rendering 725 represents a second rendering displaying the second coating. The digital measurements of this coating, or more precisely, the coating properties 730, are also displayed in the user interface 700. Similarly, the second rendering may include a second three-dimensional rendering in which the second coating is applied to the second curved surface.

[0097] Action 1025 includes displaying a third rendering representing the standard coating in the user interface. For example, standard coating rendering 705 represents the third rendering. Optionally, the third rendering may include a third three-dimensional rendering in which the standard coating is applied to a third curved surface. In some cases, the aforementioned first curved surface is included as part of a first vehicle of a specific type, the second curved surface is included as part of a second vehicle of the same specific type, and the third curved surface is included as part of a third vehicle of the same specific type. In some cases, different vehicle manufactures and models may be used, while in others, the same manufacture and model may be used.

[0098] exist Figure 10 In addition, there is an action (action 1030) that displays a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating. The matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the first coating and the standard coating. Figure 8 The matching status 830 in the diagram represents this action. The matching status indicates whether the test coating matches or does not match the standard coating. This matching also reflects whether the conditions at the external coating system have been calibrated relative to the conditions at the calibrated facility.

[0099] Action 1035 includes displaying a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating. The second matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the second coating and the coating properties of the standard coating. Figure 8 Matching condition 835 in the table can represent this action. In some cases, the process of determining the matching condition involves determining whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the test coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold.

[0100] Example computer system

[0101] In this regard, the disclosed system advantageously provides a unique user interface and operation designed to improve the coating comparison and calibration process. For this purpose, the system relies on a computer system configured in a specific manner to achieve these benefits.

[0102] Return to Figure 4 This figure illustrates an example computer system 400, which may contain and / or be used to perform any of the components or operations described herein. Computer system 400 can take many different forms. For example, computer system 400 may be embodied as a tablet computer, desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile device, or standalone device. Computer system 400 may also be a distributed system containing one or more connected computing components / devices communicating with computer system 400.

[0103] In its most basic configuration, the computer system 400 contains a variety of different components. Figure 4 The computer system 400 shown includes one or more processors (e.g., 415A, 415B, 415C) (also referred to as "hardware processing units") and storage device 420.

[0104] Regarding processors, it should be understood that the functions described herein can be performed, at least in part, by one or more hardware logic components (e.g., processors 415A, 415B, or 415C). For example, and not as a limitation, the hardware logic components / processors of the described types that may be used include field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), application-specific standard products (“ASSPs”), system-on-a-chip (“SOCs”), complex programmable logic devices (“CPLDs”), central processing units (“CPUs”), graphics processing units (“GPUs”), or any other type of programmable hardware.

[0105] The reference to "engine" (e.g., ML engine 430) can be implemented as a specific processing unit (e.g., a dedicated processing unit as described above) configured to perform one or more specialized operations of computer system 400. As used herein, the terms "executable module," "executable component," "component," "module," or "engine" can refer to a hardware processing unit or a software object, routine, or method that can be executed on computer system 400. The various components, modules, engines, and services described herein can be implemented as objects or processors that execute on computer system 400 (e.g., implemented as separate threads).

[0106] Storage device 420 may be physical system memory, which may be volatile, non-volatile, or a combination of both. The term "memory" may also be used herein to refer to non-volatile mass storage devices, such as physical storage media. If the computer system 400 is distributed, then processing, memory, and / or storage capacity may also be distributed.

[0107] Storage device 420 is shown as containing executable instructions 425. Executable instructions 425 represent instructions that can be executed by the processor of computer system 400 (or possibly even ML engine 430) to perform the disclosed operations, such as those described in the various methods.

[0108] The disclosed embodiments may include or utilize a dedicated or general-purpose computer, which includes computer hardware such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory (such as storage device 420), as discussed in more detail below. The embodiments also include physical media and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and / or data structures. Such computer-readable media may be any available media accessible by a general-purpose or dedicated computer system. A computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions in data form is a “physical computer storage medium” or “hardware storage device.” A computer-readable medium carrying computer-executable instructions is a “transmission medium.” Therefore, by way of example and not limitation, the present embodiments may include at least two distinctly different kinds of computer-readable media: computer storage media and transmission media.

[0109] Computer storage media (also known as “hardware storage devices”) are computer-readable hardware storage devices such as RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM, RAM-based solid-state drives (“SSDs”), flash memory, phase-change memory (“PCM”) or other types of memory, or other optical disc storage devices, magnetic disk storage devices or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired program code in the form of computer-executable instructions, data or data structures and that can be accessed by a general-purpose or special-purpose computer.

[0110] Computer system 400 can also connect to external sensors (e.g., one or more remote cameras) or devices (via wired or wireless connections) through network 435. For example, computer system 400 can communicate with any number of devices (e.g., spectrophotometer 405) or cloud services to acquire or process data. In some cases, network 435 itself may be a cloud network. Furthermore, computer system 400 can also connect to remote / disconnected computer systems configured to perform any of the processes described with respect to computer system 400 via one or more wired or wireless networks 435.

[0111] A “network,” such as network 435, is defined as one or more data links and / or data switches that enable the transmission of electronic data between computer systems, modules, and / or other electronic devices. When information is transferred to or provided to a computer via a network (hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired and wireless), the computer appropriately regards the connection as a transmission medium. Computer system 400 will include one or more communication channels for communicating with network 435. The transmission medium includes a network that can be used to carry data or desired program code in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures. Furthermore, these computer-executable instructions can be accessed by general-purpose or special-purpose computers. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.

[0112] Upon arrival at various computer system components, program code in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures can be automatically transferred from the transmission medium to the computer storage medium (and vice versa). For example, computer-executable instructions or data structures received via a network or data link can be buffered in RAM within a network interface module (e.g., a network interface card or "NIC") and then eventually transferred to the computer system RAM and / or to less volatile computer storage media at the computer system location. Therefore, it should be understood that computer storage media can be included within computer system components that also (or even primarily) utilize the transmission medium.

[0113] Computer-executable (or computer-interpretable) instructions include, for example, instructions that cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or special-purpose processing device to perform a function or a set of functions. Computer-executable instructions can be, for example, binary, intermediate format instructions such as assembly language, or even source code. Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and / or methodological actions, it should be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the features or actions described above. Rather, the described features and actions are disclosed as examples of the claims.

[0114] Those skilled in the art will understand that this embodiment can be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, handheld devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframes, mobile phones, PDAs, pagers, routers, switches, etc. This embodiment can also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, linked by a network (via hardwired data links, wireless data links, or a combination of hardwired and wireless data links), each perform tasks (e.g., cloud computing, cloud services, etc.). In a distributed system environment, program modules can be located in local and remote memory storage devices.

[0115] In view of the foregoing, the present invention relates to, for example but not limited to, the following aspects:

[0116] In a first aspect, a computer-implemented method for comparing a test coating with a standard coating, specifically according to any one of methods fourteen to twenty, may include: selecting a standard coating for operation as a standard to compare with the test coating to determine whether the test coating adequately matches the standard coating; determining coating properties of the test coating, wherein the coating properties of the test coating are based on received digital measurements of the test coating, wherein the test coating was previously applied to an asset, and wherein the digital measurements are received from a remotely located coating system; determining coating properties of the standard coating; displaying (i) a rendering representing the test coating and (ii) a rendering representing the standard coating within a user interface; comparing the coating properties of the test coating with the coating properties of the standard coating; determining whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the test coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold; and displaying the matching status between the test coating and the standard coating based on the comparison and based on the defined difference threshold.

[0117] In a second aspect of the computer-implemented method according to aspect one, the method may further include generating a notification indicating a set of calibration parameters that, when implemented, modify the conditions at the remotely positioned coating system to more closely match the subsequent application of the test coating with the standard coating.

[0118] In a third aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of the foregoing aspects one to two, the test coating may be a sample of the standard coating, such that both the test coating and the standard coating originate from the same source, specifically the coating composition used for the standard coating and the test coating originates from the same source or batch.

[0119] In a fourth aspect, a computer system can be configured to compare a plurality of different test coatings with a standard coating, specifically using a method according to any one of method aspects one to twenty-seven, wherein the plurality of different test coatings are applied at a plurality of different coating systems, the computer system may include: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to at least receive: a first digital measurement result of a first coating previously applied at a first coating system to a first asset; receive: a second digital measurement result of a second coating previously applied at a second coating system to a second asset, the second coating system being different from the first coating system; display within a user interface: a first rendering representing the first coating and the first digital measurement result of the first coating; a second rendering representing the second coating and the second digital measurement result of the second coating; a third rendering representing the standard coating; display a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the matching status is based on a comparison between coating properties of the first coating and coating properties of the standard coating; and display a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second matching status is based on a comparison between coating properties of the second coating and coating properties of the standard coating.

[0120] In a fifth aspect of the computer system according to aspect four, the first rendering may include a first three-dimensional rendering in which the first coating is applied to a first curved surface.

[0121] In a sixth aspect of the computer system described in aspects four and five above, the second rendering may include a second three-dimensional rendering in which the second coating is applied to a second curved surface.

[0122] In a seventh aspect of the computer system according to aspects four to six above, the third rendering may include a third three-dimensional rendering in which the standard coating is applied to a third curved surface.

[0123] In an eighth aspect of the computer system according to any one of aspects four to seven above, the first coating may be a sample of the standard coating such that the first coating and the standard coating originate from the same source, and wherein the second coating is another sample of the standard coating such that the first coating, the second coating and the standard coating both originate from the same source, specifically the coating composition used for the standard coating and the first coating and the second coating originates from the same source or batch.

[0124] In a ninth aspect of the computer system according to any one of the preceding aspects four to eight, the first matching condition may include a mathematical representation of the mathematical difference between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating.

[0125] In a tenth aspect of the computer system according to any one of the foregoing aspects four to nine, the second matching condition may include the difference in CIELab color space values ​​between the first coating and the standard coating.

[0126] In an eleventh aspect of the computer system according to any one of the foregoing aspects four to ten, the user interface may further display calibration parameters adapted to modify one or more conditions at the first coating system so that subsequent application of the first coating at the first coating system more closely matches the standard coating.

[0127] In a twelfth aspect of the computer system according to any one of aspects four to eleven above, execution of the instructions may further enable the computer system to determine whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold; and when the one or more differences are determined to be within the defined difference threshold, to enable the first matching condition to indicate that the first coating is sufficiently matched with the standard coating.

[0128] In a thirteenth aspect of the computer system according to any one of the foregoing aspects four to twelve, the first rendering, the second rendering, and the third rendering can be displayed close to each other.

[0129] In the fourteenth aspect, a computer-implemented method for visually displaying multiple different test coatings on a user interface to facilitate comparison with a standard coating, specifically using another or additional configuration of a computer-implemented method performed by a computer system according to any one of aspects four to thirteen, wherein the multiple different test coatings are received from multiple different coating systems, may include receiving a first digital measurement result of a first coating previously applied to a first asset at a first coating system; receiving a second digital measurement result of a second coating previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system; displaying within the user interface: a first rendering representing the first coating and the first digital measurement result of the first coating; a second rendering representing the second coating and the second digital measurement result of the second coating; a third rendering representing the standard coating; displaying a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the matching status is based on a comparison between coating properties of the first coating and coating properties of the standard coating; and displaying a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second matching status is based on a comparison between coating properties of the second coating and the coating properties of the standard coating.

[0130] In a fifteenth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to aspect fourteen, the coating properties of the standard coating may be retained in a coating database.

[0131] In a sixteenth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of aspects fourteen to fifteen, the method may further include determining whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold.

[0132] In a seventeenth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of aspects fourteen to sixteen, receiving the first digital measurement result may further include receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the first coating system is positioned or the first coating is applied.

[0133] In an eighteenth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of aspects fourteen to seventeen, receiving the second digital measurement result may further include receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the second coating system is positioned or the second coating is applied.

[0134] In a nineteenth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of aspects fourteen to eighteen, the first rendering may include a three-dimensional (3D) rendering of the vehicle coated with the first coating.

[0135] In a twentieth aspect of the computer-implemented method according to any one of aspects fourteen to nineteen, the first coating, the second coating, and the standard coating may originate from the same coating source, specifically the coating composition used for the standard coating and the first and second coatings originating from the same source or batch.

[0136] In the twenty-first aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects one to twenty, each digital measurement result may include spectral data of the corresponding coating, specifically spectrophotometric data, data acquired through image processing, and / or spectral colorimetric data.

[0137] In the twenty-second aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects 1 to 21, each coating property, specifically each test coating property, can be determined using spectral data of the corresponding coating, specifically spectrophotometric data, data acquired through image processing, and / or spectral colorimetric data.

[0138] In the twenty-third aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects one to twenty-two, the coating properties of the standard coating can be determined using spectral data from a coating system different from a coating system used for remote positioning of the test coating.

[0139] In the twenty-fourth aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects 1 to 23, the coating properties may include a set of colorants, and the probability of the presence of a particular colorant may be associated with each colorant.

[0140] In the twenty-fifth aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects 1 to 24, each coating property may include environmental data present during the application of the respective coating, specifically temperature, humidity and / or altitude.

[0141] In the twenty-sixth aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects 1 to 25, each coating property may include environmental conditions, specifically equipment such as coating equipment, tools, techniques, environmental data, and / or assets.

[0142] In the twenty-seventh aspect of the method or computer system according to any one of aspects 1 to 26, each matching condition may include the difference in CIELab color space values ​​between the corresponding coating and the standard coating.

[0143] The invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its characteristics. The described embodiments should be considered in all respects as illustrative rather than restrictive. Therefore, the scope of the invention is indicated by the appended claims, not by the foregoing description. All changes falling within the meaning and scope of equivalents of the claims are to be covered by the claims.

Claims

1. A method for comparing a test coating with a standard coating, the method comprising: A standard coating is selected as a reference for comparison with a test coating to determine whether the test coating is a good match for the standard coating, wherein the test coating is a sample of the standard coating and the test coating and the standard coating are derived from the same source; Determine the coating properties of the test coating, wherein the coating properties of the test coating are based on received digital measurements of the test coating, wherein the test coating was previously applied to the asset, and wherein the digital measurements were received from a remotely located coating system; Determine the coating properties of the standard coating; The user interface displays (1) a rendering of the test coating and (ii) a rendering of the standard coating; The coating properties of the test coating are compared with the coating properties of the standard coating; Determine whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the test coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold; Based on the comparison and the defined difference threshold, the matching status indicating the calibration status of the remotely located coating system is displayed.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a notification indicating a set of calibration parameters, which, when applied, modify the conditions at the remotely located coating system to more closely align subsequent application of the test coating with the standard coating.

3. A computer system configured to compare a plurality of different test coatings with a standard coating, wherein the plurality of different test coatings are applied at a plurality of different coating systems, the computer system comprising: One or more processors; as well as One or more computer-readable hardware storage devices, the one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices storing instructions that can be executed by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to at least: Receive the first digital measurement result of the first coating previously applied to the first asset at the first coating system; Receive a second digital measurement result of a second coating previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system, which is different from the first coating system; Displayed within the user interface: The first rendering representing the first coating and the first digital measurement result of the first coating; The second rendering representing the second coating and the second digital measurement result of the second coating; The third rendering represents the standard coating; This displays a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating, and wherein the first matching status indicates the calibration status of the first coating system; and This displays a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the second coating and the coating properties of the standard coating, and wherein the second matching status indicates the calibration status of the second coating system; The first coating is a sample of the standard coating, such that the first coating and the standard coating originate from the same source, and the second coating is another sample of the standard coating, such that the first coating, the second coating, and the standard coating all originate from the same source.

4. The computer system of claim 3, wherein the first rendering includes a first three-dimensional rendering, in which the first coating is applied to a first curved surface.

5. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 4, wherein the second rendering comprises a second three-dimensional rendering, in which the second coating is applied to a second curved surface.

6. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 5, wherein the third rendering comprises a third three-dimensional rendering in which the standard coating is applied to a third curved surface.

7. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 6, wherein the first matching condition comprises a mathematical representation of the mathematical difference between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating.

8. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 7, wherein the second matching condition comprises the difference in CIELab color space values ​​between the first coating and the standard coating.

9. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 8, wherein the user interface further displays calibration parameters adapted to modify one or more conditions at the first coating system to make subsequent application of the first coating at the first coating system more closely consistent with the standard coating.

10. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 9, wherein the execution of the instructions further causes the computer system to: Determine whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold; and When the one or more differences are determined to be within the defined difference threshold, the first matching condition indicates that the first coating fully matches the standard coating.

11. The computer system according to any one of claims 3 to 10, wherein the first rendering, the second rendering, and the third rendering are displayed close to each other.

12. A method for determining the calibration status of multiple remotely located coating systems by visually displaying multiple different test coatings on a user interface to facilitate comparison with a standard coating, wherein the multiple different test coatings are received from multiple different coating systems, the method comprising: Receive the first digital measurement result of the first coating previously applied to the first asset at the first coating system; Receive the second digital measurement results of the second coating previously applied to the second asset at the second coating system; Displayed within the user interface: The first rendering representing the first coating and the first digital measurement result of the first coating; The second rendering representing the second coating and the second digital measurement result of the second coating; The third rendering represents the standard coating; This displays a first matching status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating, and wherein the first matching status indicates the calibration status of the first coating system. as well as This displays a second matching status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second matching status is based on a comparison between the coating properties of the second coating and the coating properties of the standard coating, wherein the first coating is a sample of the standard coating such that the first coating and the standard coating originate from the same source, and wherein the second coating is another sample of the standard coating such that the first coating, the second coating, and the standard coating all originate from the same source.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the coating properties of the standard coating are retained in a coating database.

14. The method according to any one of claims 12 to 13, wherein the method further comprises: Determine whether one or more differences between the coating properties of the first coating and the coating properties of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold.

15. The method according to any one of claims 12 to 14, wherein receiving the first digital measurement result further comprises receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the first coating system is positioned or the first coating is applied.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein receiving the second digital measurement result further comprises receiving environmental condition data of the environment in which the second coating system is positioned or the second coating is applied.

17. The method according to any one of claims 12 to 16, wherein the first rendering comprises a three-dimensional (3D) rendering of a vehicle coated with the first coating.

Images