Guides

Photogrammetry vs. LiDAR: Choosing the Right 3D Capture Method

Metascan multi-camera photogrammetry scanning rig

"Which is better, photogrammetry or LiDAR?" is the wrong question — it's like asking whether a hammer is better than a screwdriver. The right answer depends entirely on what you're capturing, how it will be used, and what tradeoffs you're willing to make. Here's how we think about it.

Photogrammetry: texture-first, camera-driven

Photogrammetry reconstructs 3D geometry from a set of overlapping photographs, using the parallax between images to triangulate surface positions. Because it starts from photos, it excels at capturing rich, accurate color and texture detail.

Where it shines:

Where it struggles:

LiDAR: geometry-first, distance-driven

LiDAR measures distance directly by timing laser pulses reflected off a surface, building a point cloud independent of lighting or surface texture. It trades some visual richness for geometric reliability.

Where it shines:

Where it struggles:

When a hybrid pipeline wins

For many real projects, the best answer is both: LiDAR to lock down accurate scale and structure, cameras to layer in photorealistic texture on top. This is increasingly common in cultural heritage capture, large industrial assets, and any project where both dimensional accuracy and visual quality are non-negotiable.

A simple way to decide

Ask two questions: how large is the subject, and does texture matter as much as geometry? Small subjects where visual fidelity is the deliverable point toward photogrammetry. Large environments where dimensional accuracy is the deliverable point toward LiDAR. Anything that needs both is a candidate for a hybrid pipeline.

Not sure which capture method fits your project?

Tell us what you're scanning and we'll recommend the right approach — photogrammetry, LiDAR, or both.

Meet our scanner