LiDAR uses laser pulses that can penetrate gaps in vegetation to reach the ground, while photogrammetry builds terrain models from overlapping photographs limited to visible surfaces.

Not necessarily. For open, minimally vegetated sites, photogrammetry delivers comparable accuracy at significantly lower cost. LiDAR earns its premium specifically in vegetated terrain.

LiDAR sensors are more expensive hardware, generate larger datasets, and require specialized processing, typically costing 2 to 3 times more than equivalent photogrammetry surveys.

No, photogrammetry relies on visible camera imagery and cannot see beneath tree canopy, which is the core advantage LiDAR offers for forested terrain.

LiDAR generally produces higher point density, especially in complex terrain, though modern photogrammetry can also achieve dense point clouds on well-textured, open surfaces.

Yes, since LiDAR uses its own laser pulses rather than relying on ambient light, unlike photogrammetry which depends on good lighting conditions for image quality.

Forested areas, dense vegetation, and complex terrain with canopy obstruction benefit most, since these are exactly the conditions photogrammetry cannot handle well.

Photogrammetry will capture the canopy surface but not the ground beneath it, so LiDAR is generally recommended for accurate bare-earth data in forested sites.

Yes, LiDAR still benefits from DGPS-surveyed ground control points to achieve and verify survey-grade accuracy, similar to photogrammetry workflows.

Photogrammetry processing is often faster due to smaller file sizes, while LiDAR's denser datasets typically require more processing time and specialized software.