CaRaCTO-3D / README.md
mahdichamseddine's picture
CaRaCTO-3D dataset: camera, radar, and OptiTrack ground truth for extrinsic calibration (40 positions)
6f508d0
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
11.8 kB
---
license: cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
pretty_name: "CaRaCTO-3D: Camera-Radar Extrinsic Calibration Dataset"
tags:
- radar
- camera
- sensor-fusion
- extrinsic-calibration
- robotics
- mocap
- optitrack
task_categories:
- other
size_categories:
- n<1K
viewer: false
---
# CaRaCTO-3D Dataset
[![License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-CC%20BY--NC--SA%204.0-lightgrey.svg)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
[![Paper (ICPRAM 2024)](https://img.shields.io/badge/Paper-ICPRAM%202024-blue.svg)](https://www.scitepress.org/Link.aspx?doi=10.5220/0012369700003654)
[![Paper (SN Comput. Sci. 2025)](https://img.shields.io/badge/Paper-SN%20Comput.%20Sci.%202025-blue.svg)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42979-025-04355-w)
[![Code](https://img.shields.io/badge/GitHub-CaRaCTO--3D-black.svg?logo=github)](https://github.com/dfki-av/CaRaCTO-3D)
Camera + radar + motion-capture ground-truth data for extrinsic calibration between a camera and
a 24 GHz FMCW radar, collected with a trihedral corner-reflector calibration target. This is the
dataset behind:
- [**CaRaCTO**: *Robust Camera-Radar Extrinsic Calibration with Triple Constraint Optimization*, published at ICPRAM 2024 (Best Industrial Paper Award).](https://www.scitepress.org/Link.aspx?doi=10.5220/0012369700003654)
- [**CaRaCTO-3D**: *From Camera-Radar Calibration to Scene Reconstruction*, published in SN Computer Science 2025.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42979-025-04355-w)
![Camera+radar rig and room setup](setup.png)
## Dataset Summary
A single capture session: the camera+radar rig stayed fixed for the whole session while a
trihedral corner-reflector target was placed at 40 different static positions in a room. At each
position, camera, radar, and OptiTrack motion-capture data were recorded simultaneously, and the
target was manually annotated in the camera image.
## Dataset Structure
```
├── setup.png # reference photo of the room/rig setup
├── calibration/
│ ├── camera_intrinsics.json # {"camera_matrix": 3x3, "dist_coeff": [5]}
│ ├── axis_convention.json # the published coordinate frame convention
│ └── radar_rig_markers.json # 4 rig-mounted mocap markers, published frame (fixed
│ # for the whole session — the rig never moved)
├── positions.json # per-position index: annotation/quality/alignment flags
└── Position_01/ ... Position_40/ # one directory per static target position
├── camera/
│ ├── frame_00.jpg .. frame_NN.jpg # full captured burst (count varies, 20-26 frames)
│ └── frame_timestamps_ms.json
├── annotation.json # manual 6-point target annotation + PnP distance
├── radar.npz # radar detections for this position
└── ground_truth.json # transform-corrected OptiTrack target marker positions
```
### `positions.json`
One entry per position:
```json
{
"annotated": true,
"valid_for_reconstruction": false,
"num_camera_frames": 26,
"num_radar_detections": 25,
"frame_alignment": {
"aligned": true,
"camera_frame_range": [0, 25],
"radar_detection_range": [0, 25],
"note": null
},
"notes": null
}
```
- **`annotated`**: whether the corner-reflector target was successfully hand-annotated in the
camera image for this position. 4 of 40 positions are not: `Position_12`, `Position_16`, `Position_17`,
`Position_35`.
- **`valid_for_reconstruction`**: a hand-curated subset (28 of 40 positions) that achieved good
camera/radar/depth correspondences for the 3D scene-reconstruction pipeline in the original
research code. This is a research judgment call from the original authors, carried over
verbatim, not something re-derived from the data.
- **`frame_alignment`**: see "Camera/radar frame alignment" below.
### `Position_XX/annotation.json`
The corner reflector is a trihedral target annotated by 6 image points — an "outer" triangle and
an "inner" triangle, one point pair per edge — whose corresponding lines all meet at the target's
projected center:
```json
{
"annotated": true,
"outer_triangle": [[x, y], [x, y], [x, y]],
"inner_triangle": [[x, y], [x, y], [x, y]],
"target_center": [x, y],
"corner_edges": [[[x, y], [x, y]], [[x, y], [x, y]], [[x, y], [x, y]]],
"distance_m": 4.074520093282576
}
```
`corner_edges[i]` is `[outer_triangle[i], intersection_point]`, where `intersection_point` is
where the line through `outer_triangle[i]`/`inner_triangle[i]` crosses the edge formed by the
other two inner-triangle points — used to refine the target's 3D pose via `solvePnP`, giving
`distance_m`. For the 4 unannotated positions, all fields except `annotated` are `null`.
### `Position_XX/radar.npz`
```
range_m, velocity_mps, magnitude, angle_rad, noise float32 (N,) # per detection
amplitude_re, amplitude_im float32 (N,4) # per-antenna complex amplitude
```
`N` (the detection count) varies per position, typically 20-25. These are what the original
calibration code actually used (averaging `range_m` and `angle_rad` across all detections in a
position to get a single radar range/azimuth measurement).
The original raw capture (`radar_data.pickle`) also contained two extra per-position fields whose
generation could not be attributed to any script found on the original processing machine
(including the full git history of two other local forks of the processing code) — they were not
used by any code in this repository, so they were dropped from this release rather than published
as unexplained data.
### Camera/radar frame alignment
Each position's camera burst (`camera/frame_*.jpg`) and radar detection list (`radar.npz`) come
from independently-clocked acquisition loops that start/stop within a few cycles of each other,
so their counts are usually equal or off by 1-2. There are no reliable per-detection timestamps
on the radar side, so alignment assumes a **constant frame rate per modality** (not wall-clock
timestamps) and trims the longer sequence's extra frames symmetrically from the start/end.
`positions.json`'s `frame_alignment` field records this per position:
- `aligned: true` — counts differ by at most 4; `camera_frame_range`/`radar_detection_range` give
the trimmed, index-aligned window into each modality.
- `aligned: false` — counts differ by more than that (e.g. `Position_10`: 21 camera frames vs. only 4
radar detections; `Position_30`: 21 vs. 39). This is a real radar detection-count anomaly (track
drop-outs or extra spurious detections), not a start/stop timing offset, so no automatic
trim is applied — `note` explains why.
`caracto.dataset.caracto_dataset.CaractoDataset.load_aligned(key)` applies this automatically and
raises for `aligned: false` positions.
### `Position_XX/ground_truth.json`
```json
{
"target_markers_xyz": [[x, y, z], [x, y, z], [x, y, z], [x, y, z]],
"target_center_xyz": [x, y, z],
"description": "..."
}
```
The 4 individual corner-reflector target markers (mean over ~630 raw OptiTrack frames for this
position) and the corresponding rigid-body centroid, both already centered on the radar and
expressed in the published coordinate frame (see below). Only this corrected result is included,
not the raw per-frame export.
## OptiTrack Ground Truth & Coordinate Frames
**Published frame**: origin at the radar sensor position, **X forward** (away from the radar,
into the scene), **Y left**, **Z up** — matching the convention used throughout the
calibration/reconstruction code (`azimuth = atan2(y, x)`, elevation along `z`), documented in
`calibration/axis_convention.json`.
All ground truth in this release is already centered on the radar and expressed in this frame.
`radar_rig_markers.json` gives the rig's own mocap marker positions as an independent sanity
check — they cluster within ~5cm of the origin, as expected.
## Known Limitations / Data Quality
- 4 of 40 positions have no manual camera annotation: `Position_12`, `Position_16`, `Position_17`, `Position_35`.
- 28 of 40 positions are flagged `valid_for_reconstruction` — a hand-curated "good correspondence"
subset from the original research code. One quirk preserved verbatim: `Position_35` is in this list
despite having no annotation; this has no practical effect since annotation-based filtering is
applied first by the calibration code.
- Two individual OptiTrack target markers were entirely untracked (mocap occlusion) for their
whole position: `Position_16` marker 1, `Position_33` marker 2 — recorded as `NaN` in
`target_markers_xyz` for that marker only; `target_center_xyz` (the rigid-body centroid) is
unaffected since OptiTrack computes it from the other tracked markers.
- Raw radar ADC channel data (per-antenna chirp samples) was captured but is **not** included in
this release — only the processed per-detection values are. It was unused by any of the
original calibration/reconstruction code. Contact the authors if you need it for a specific
research purpose.
- A duplicate copy of the original `radar_data.pickle` existed at two paths in the raw capture
directory; investigation during this dataset's preparation found the two were **not**
identical — one copy had one of its (since-dropped, unattributable) legacy fields overwritten
with the OptiTrack ground truth value (for all 40 positions) and was missing the
axis-convention field entirely, consistent with a later debug/analysis artifact rather than a
genuine duplicate. This release is derived from the original (unmodified) copy, matching what
the calibration code has always read.
## Loading the Dataset
```python
from caracto.dataset.caracto_dataset import CaractoDataset
# Local copy:
ds = CaractoDataset("/path/to/CaRaCTO-3D")
# Or directly from the Hub:
# ds = CaractoDataset(repo_id="dfki-av/CaRaCTO-3D")
sample = ds.load("Position_01") # everything as published (full burst, full detections)
aligned = ds.load_aligned(
"Position_01"
) # camera frames + radar detections, index-aligned
single = ds.load_single(
"Position_01"
) # one representative measurement (frame 0 + averaged radar range/azimuth)
```
Without `caracto` installed, every file is a plain JSON/JPEG/NPZ file readable with standard
tools (`json.load`, `PIL.Image.open`/`cv2.imread`, `numpy.load`).
## Citation
```
@article{chamseddine2025caracto,
title = {CaRaCTO-3D: From Camera-Radar Calibration to Scene Reconstruction},
author = {Chamseddine, Mahdi and Rambach, Jason and Stricker, Didier},
journal = {SN Computer Science},
volume = {6},
number = {7},
pages = {822},
year = {2025},
publisher = {Springer},
}
@inproceedings{chamseddine2024caracto,
title = {CaRaCTO: Robust Camera-Radar Extrinsic Calibration with Triple Constraint Optimization},
author = {Chamseddine, Mahdi and Rambach, Jason R and Stricker, Didier },
year = 2024,
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods - ICPRAM},
pages = {534--545},
organization = {INSTICC},
}
```
## Acknowledgement
This research was partially funded by the European Union as part of the project HumanTech (Grant Agreement 101058236) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) of the Federal Republic of Germany as part of the research project COPPER (Grant Number 01IW24009).
## License
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.