3D Gaussian Splatting vs Photogrammetry vs LiDAR: A Practical Decision Guide

In 2026, choosing a 3D capture method is less about “which tech is newest” and more about what you need at the end:

• Do you need an editable mesh for Blender, Unity/Unreal, or 3D printing?

• Do you need fast spatial context and scale for a room or large environment?

• Or do you need the most realistic visual result for interactive viewing and showcases?

A workflow-first view of 3D capture options: PhotoScan for editable meshes, LiDAR for fast room-scale geometry, and 3DGS for splat-style visualization, plus related tooling around editing and export.

This guide compares 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS), Photogrammetry (PhotoScan / mesh reconstruction), and LiDAR scanning in a workflow-first way, with clear tradeoffs and a decision table you can actually use.

TL;DR (Quick Decision)

Need an editable asset for production?

• Choose Photogrammetry (mesh-first). It’s the most compatible choice for Blender editing, game assets, and 3D printing.

Need fast room-scale geometry and real-world scale?

• Choose LiDAR (depth-first), if you have a compatible device. Great for spaces and fast layout capture.

Need the most realistic viewing result (especially tricky surfaces)?

• Choose 3DGS (splat-first). It often preserves “how things look” better than meshes, especially for difficult materials.

Most common “hybrid” in real workflows:

• Capture a mesh for production workflows, and capture 3DGS for visualization/reference when realism matters.

Practical Comparison Table

1) Photogrammetry (PhotoScan): Best When You Need an Editable Mesh

Photogrammetry reconstructs a surface by matching visual features across many overlapping photos. When it works well, it produces the most pipeline-compatible output: an editable mesh that fits standard 3D workflows.

Example of a PhotoScan-style capture: taking many overlapping photos around an object to reconstruct an editable mesh.

Use Photogrammetry if you need:

• Blender cleanup and editing (retopo, UVs, texture workflows)

• Unity/Unreal assets (LOD, collision, baking, normal production steps)

• 3D printing (repairable meshes, watertight prep, slicing)

What photogrammetry is great at

• Delivering a true mesh workflow that fits almost every industry pipeline

• Producing detailed geometry on textured subjects with good lighting and sharp capture

• Scaling from small objects to medium scenes (depending on tool + capture discipline)

The key limitation

Photogrammetry is famously sensitive to:

• smooth, shiny, reflective, or low-texture surfaces

• inconsistent lighting and motion blur

• poor overlap or missing angles

Illustrative example: photogrammetry tends to degrade on smooth, low-feature objects, often producing holes or “melted” surfaces compared with feature-rich subjects.

In those cases you often see holes, warping, softened detail, or “melted” surfaces.

Practical takeaway: If you need a file you can edit like a normal 3D asset, photogrammetry is still the most reliable starting point—but it demands good capture conditions.

2) LiDAR: Best When You Need Fast Spatial Context and Real Scale

LiDAR measures depth directly, which helps capture room-scale geometry quickly with more reliable real-world scale than photo-only methods.

LiDAR scanning measures depth directly. In practice, that means it can capture room-scale geometry quickly, often with more stable scale than photo-only methods.

Use LiDAR if you need:

• rooms, interiors, and larger spaces

• fast capture for layout, spatial reference, or measurement-aware workflows

• a quick environment “blockout” for planning

What LiDAR is great at

• Fast capture, especially for spaces and large geometry

• Stable scale and structure even when visual texture is low (e.g., plain walls)

A side-by-side room scan shows how AI-enhanced LiDAR can improve surface completeness and structural clarity compared with a raw LiDAR capture, especially on large, low-texture areas.

The key limitation

LiDAR-based results can have:

• lower surface detail compared to a strong photogrammetry capture

• textures that are less sharp

• geometry that’s “good enough” for layout, but not necessarily for high-fidelity asset work

Practical takeaway: LiDAR is a speed-and-scale tool. It’s excellent for spaces and reference, but not always the best choice when you need fine surface detail.

3) 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS): Best When Visual Realism Matters

3DGS represents a scene using many Gaussian “splats” rather than triangles, which can preserve appearance well for visualization and interactive viewing.

3DGS represents a scene as many 3D “splats” (Gaussian primitives) instead of triangles. The big win is that it often preserves appearance extremely well—especially for cases where classic meshes struggle to look right.

Use 3DGS if you need:

• interactive viewing and showcases

• the most “real-looking” result for presentation

• a workflow where the output is meant to be viewed, not edited like a mesh

What 3DGS is great at

• Strong visual realism for many real-world scenes

• Often more forgiving for “difficult appearance” compared to mesh workflows

• Great for web viewers, interactive demos, and visualization

Example of a real-world 3DGS capture. Splats can preserve the overall look of a scene for web viewers, interactive demos, and visualization.

The key limitation

3DGS is not a drop-in replacement for mesh pipelines:

• It’s not an editable mesh asset in the traditional sense

• Most production workflows still rely on meshes for UVs/topology/LODs/collision

• For printing and standard asset editing, meshes remain the practical requirement

Practical takeaway: If your goal is the most realistic viewing experience, 3DGS is a great choice. If your goal is a normal editable asset, you usually want a mesh workflow.

Real-World Examples: What Should You Choose?

If you’re doing game development

• Most pipelines still want meshes (optimization, UVs, baking, LODs, collisions).

• Start with Photogrammetry for production assets.

• Use 3DGS when you want visual reference or a realistic showcase.

If you’re working mainly in Blender

• Want to edit/sculpt/retopo? Choose Photogrammetry (mesh-first).

• Want to view splats in Blender for visualization? That’s often handled via viewers or dedicated add-ons, but it’s not the same as editing a mesh asset.

If you’re doing 3D printing

• Choose Photogrammetry (mesh-first).

• LiDAR can be useful for fast reference, but meshes are still the standard for repair and watertight prep.

If you’re capturing rooms/interiors

• Choose LiDAR first when you have it (fast + scale).

• Use Photogrammetry when you need higher detail and can control capture conditions.

FAQ

Can I use 3DGS/splats in Blender like a normal asset?

Not like a standard mesh. 3DGS is great for viewing and rendering-style workflows, but traditional pipelines still rely on meshes (UVs, topology, LODs). In Blender specifically, splats are commonly handled via viewers or add-ons (for example, KIRI Engine provides a 3DGS Render add-on), which helps with viewing/rendering—but it’s not a substitute for a mesh-based asset workflow.

Why do smooth or shiny objects often fail in photogrammetry?

Photogrammetry needs stable, trackable visual features across photos. Smooth surfaces lack features, and reflections change with viewing angle, which breaks matching and leads to holes, warping, or softened geometry.

Is LiDAR “better” than photogrammetry?

They’re optimized for different goals. LiDAR is great for fast geometry and scale in spaces, while photogrammetry can capture higher surface detail when capture conditions are good.

How do I choose if I’m not sure what I need yet?

Start with your deliverable:

• If you need an editable asset: pick photogrammetry.

• If you need fast space capture: pick LiDAR (if you have it).

• If you need realistic viewing: pick 3DGS.