2026/01/01 by Jitte Waagen, Tijm Lanjouw · 1 voice
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Environmental Science · Engineering · #3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage #Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications #Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization #Photogrammetry #Excavation #Lidar #Workflow #Context (archaeology) #Transparency (behavior) #Reliability (semiconductor) #Texture (cosmology)
paper · pdf · doi:10.5334/jcaa.245
published in Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 9(1), 245-261 (Ubiquity Press)
openalex publication_date 2026/01/01 · openalex created_date 2026/07/31 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
This study aims to compare three different 3D recording technologies—structured light scanning (Artec Leo), photogrammetry (Nikon D5300/Agisoft Metashape), and low-cost LiDAR (iPhone with PolyCam)—in the context of archaeological excavation documentation. The focus has been on evaluating their relative performance in terms of geometry, texture quality, usability, and applicability in field settings. The research was conducted at the archaeological site of Halos (Greece) as part of the Halos Archaeological Project, where a representative excavation profile was selected for analysis. Data was captured using all three technologies in close temporal sequence to ensure consistent conditions. A comparative analysis of these technologies was conducted, focusing on several critical dimensions. Specifically, it evaluated the requisite level of expertise for effective utilization, the practical applications with particular attention to ergonomic considerations, the processing time involved, and the precision and accuracy of the data produced. This evaluation encompassed both geometric reliability and the quality of texture representation. Results indicate that while all three methods produce geometrically sound models, photogrammetry outperformed the others in texture quality and overall data fidelity. The Artec Leo exhibited challenges with color accuracy under outdoor conditions, while the iPhone LiDAR showed promise due to its low cost, ease of use, and reasonable geometric accuracy, despite potential concerns regarding data transparency and long-term sustainability. The study highlighted that photogrammetry requires more expertise in the field and processing time, which may not be feasible for all projects. This comparative analysis contributes to the discourse on digital workflows in archaeology, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate technologies based on project-specific needs, resources, and the nature of the excavation. The findings advocate for further evaluations of these technologies across diverse contexts to enhance understanding of their capabilities and limitations in archaeological applications.