Can Smartphone LiDAR Record Cultural Heritage? 5 Basics to Know Before Adoption

The methods for recording cultural heritage have shifted from an era in which photography and measured surveys alone were sufficient to an era that assumes three-dimensional data. In the field of cultural heritage, three-dimensional documentation using digital cameras and LiDAR has rapidly spread, attracting attention not only for shortening work time but also as a foundation useful for high-precision recording and recovery in the event of disasters. In practice, three-dimensional recording of cultural heritage is treated as something that holds value in preservation, restoration, sharing, and disaster prevention. Tokyo

In that context, what has attracted the attention of practitioners is recording using LiDAR built into smartphones. Because they are lighter and more portable than conventional equipment and can quickly capture shapes on site, they are well suited to initial phases of cultural heritage surveys, condition checks, and acquiring data for sharing. On the other hand, because cultural properties often have complex shapes and are easily affected by surface conditions and the surrounding environment, when introducing smartphone LiDAR you need to first clarify what to record, at what accuracy, and for what purpose; otherwise you will not achieve the expected results. Recent studies also show that smartphone‑integrated LiDAR tends to produce good results for small-scale targets and short distances, while errors increase readily with complex shapes, reflective properties, vegetation, and greater distance.

Table of Contents

• Background to the attention paid to smartphone LiDAR in cultural heritage documentation

• Basic 1 Decide in advance why you are recording

• Basic 2: Determine the required accuracy by use case

• Basic 3: Understand compatibility with shapes, materials, and sizes

• Basic 4 Design site conditions and acquisition procedures

• Basic 5: Consider data storage, sharing, and reuse

• How to apply smartphone LiDAR in cultural heritage practice

• Summary

Background: Why smartphone LiDAR is attracting attention in cultural heritage documentation

Records of cultural heritage are not merely about preserving appearances. They simultaneously serve multiple purposes, such as documenting the current condition in preparation for future repairs and restorations, comparing changes over time, sharing information among stakeholders, education and outreach, and creating reference materials for disaster prevention. In the World Heritage field as well, the creation of three-dimensional models is advancing through digital data collection that combines laser scanning, aerial and terrestrial photogrammetry, 360-degree photography, and other techniques, and internationally three-dimensional recording is treated not as a special initiative but as one of the practical foundations. UNESCO World Heritage Centre

One reason smartphone LiDAR is attracting attention in this context is its on-site mobility. It can be easily brought into locations where transporting bulky equipment is difficult, and it is well suited to confined spaces and short-duration surveys, making it easy to adopt as primary documentation for cultural properties or as a supplementary means of three-dimensional capture. At the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, LiDAR measurement, photogrammetry, and the use of three-dimensional data are handled practically in exhibits and training on three-dimensional digital recording of cultural heritage, indicating that three-dimensional measurement is being shared as a concrete skill within cultural property practice.

However, the misconception to avoid here is thinking that "smartphone LiDAR makes cultural heritage documentation easy." It's true that the barrier to adoption is lower, but cultural heritage, unlike ordinary buildings or everyday objects, often involves delicate shapes, surface weathering, diverse materials, surrounding obstacles, restricted access, and conservation-related constraints, all of which create stringent recording conditions. Therefore, rather than viewing smartphone LiDAR as a universal tool, it's better to understand it as a tool whose appropriate uses should be judged according to the purpose; doing so will ultimately reduce failures.

More importantly, three-dimensional recording does not end with acquisition. Cultural heritage data only increases in value when it can be reused later. If information about where, when, by what method, and under what conditions the recording was made is not organized, it becomes difficult to use when making comparisons years later or when another person takes over. In international discussions on cultural heritage documentation, the consistency of information that supports ongoing conservation, monitoring, and preventive conservation, as well as the development of digital archives and metadata, are also emphasized as important. cipaherit

Basic 1 Decide the purpose of recording first

The first thing to consider when introducing smartphone LiDAR is not the performance of the equipment but the purpose of the recording. In cultural heritage work, even when recording the same subject, the required deliverables can differ completely depending on the purpose. For example, whether you want to create a schematic drawing to attach to an investigation report, compare shapes before and after repairs, produce a 3D model for exhibition interpretation, or share the current condition of hard-to-access areas will change the required accuracy, color reproduction, coordinate management, and tolerance for missing data.

If introduced while this remains ambiguous, in the field it tends to lead to an "let's just scan for now" practice, leaving behind large amounts of data that have no later use. What is important in cultural heritage practice is to work backwards from the final deliverable. If the main purpose is current condition assessment or stakeholder sharing, smartphone LiDAR alone can in some cases provide sufficient value. Conversely, if precise cross-sections, displacement monitoring, supporting documentation for restoration design, or rigorous baseline data for long-term comparisons are required, you should not rely solely on smartphone LiDAR but plan on using it in combination with photogrammetry, control point surveying, and the like. The three-dimensional records of World Heritage sites, which use multiple methods such as terrestrial photogrammetry and 360-degree photography in addition to laser scanning, illustrate this way of thinking well.

Also, with cultural heritage you need to consider separately what you want to preserve. The appropriate method differs depending on whether you want to preserve shape, color and surface texture, positional relationships, or to record the condition of damage. Smartphone LiDAR is excellent as an entry point for capturing shape, but a single device may not be able to fully capture fine coloration, surface textures, or minute traces of deterioration. Photo-based 3D reconstruction can be effective for supplementing visual records if images are acquired appropriately. Photogrammetry, which can extract three-dimensional information from photographs, can be made suitable for practical use when combined with scale information. National Park Service

In other words, what you should decide before introduction is not “whether to use smartphone LiDAR,” but “how far to entrust to smartphone LiDAR and from where to supplement with other methods.” If you can make that distinction, satisfaction after introduction will increase significantly. Conversely, if you introduce it without this clarification, expectations tend to become inflated, and both site personnel and those commissioning the work are likely to feel, “It doesn’t preserve as much detail as I thought,” “The positions don’t align,” and “It can’t be used for comparisons.”

Basic 2 Determine the required accuracy by application

When using smartphone LiDAR for cultural heritage documentation, the most important decision point is accuracy. What matters here is not assuming that higher accuracy is always better. In practical cultural heritage work, the accuracy that is necessary and sufficient differs depending on the use.

For three-dimensional models for on-site explanations, spatial understanding for stakeholder meetings, general condition records, and simplified models for exhibitions, there are situations where being able to quickly capture data on site and grasp the overall shape trends is more valuable. On the other hand, repair design, dimensional checks, comparison of component positions, and ongoing monitoring of settlement or deformation require stricter accuracy control.

Recent studies have found that smartphone-integrated LiDAR tends to provide good quality and accuracy for smaller targets and at short ranges, making it suitable for short-range applications; however, errors increase with distance, and accuracy degrades with complex shapes or occlusion by vegetation. Another study suggests it may be possible to generate geometrically consistent models for mid-sized, moderately complex subjects such as cultural heritage, while large variability depending on the app and conditions has also been reported. In other words, whether it is "usable" is not a binary question, but should be evaluated based on whether it is sufficient for the intended purpose.

A common mistake in the field of cultural heritage is trying to use the visually realistic 3D models obtained with smartphone LiDAR directly as the basis for precise drawings. Even models that look convincing on a screen can have fine corners rounded, surfaces smoothed, or contours softened. In particular, stone chips, weathered outlines, fine ornamentation, deep carvings, and boundaries of missing material may not match the accuracy levels required in later processes. You should consider that what is visible and what is measurable are not the same.

Therefore, before deployment it is essential to always perform trial measurements and confirm error trends for each target. You should selectively capture representative surfaces, corners, steps, recesses, and boundaries, and cross-check them against known dimensions, existing drawings, and manual measurements before moving on to the main operation. If this step is omitted, the overall reliability of the data will remain unknown after the work, and the deliverable will ultimately be difficult to use. Since cultural properties are often sites where redoing work is difficult, the value of prior validation is very high.

Furthermore, accuracy is not determined solely by the performance of the equipment. It is strongly influenced by operational conditions such as acquisition distance, walking speed, the angle to the object, whether the object is occluded, lighting conditions, and post-processing methods. Therefore, in practical work on cultural properties, it is more accurate to consider accuracy management as placing greater emphasis on "operational design" than on "equipment selection".

Basic 3: Understand compatibility with shape, material, and size

When documenting cultural heritage with smartphone LiDAR, it is essential to determine the suitability of the subject. Not all cultural properties are equally easy to record. Those that are relatively well suited include the external profiles of stone structures, the volumes of interior spaces, and subjects with continuous surfaces such as wall faces and plinths, where emphasis is placed on understanding the overall form. For these subjects, it is easy to capture a three-dimensional framework in a short time, which is useful for sharing current conditions and gaining a general overview.

On the other hand, objects that tend to be problematic are those with many fine carvings, sharp contours, transparent or highly reflective surfaces, many deep recesses, thin elements, delicate ornamentation, and targets surrounded by vegetation or obstacles. Recent studies have shown that the performance of LiDAR built into smartphones is highly susceptible to the target’s shape and surface reflectance properties, and that results tend to become unstable due to complex geometries, occlusion, and surface conditions. It has also been reported that errors tend to increase in situations covered by vegetation or in complex conditions such as composite materials.

The reason this problem tends to occur with cultural properties lies precisely in the characteristics of the objects. For example, objects such as stone Buddhas, stone pagodas, and stone monuments may at first glance seem hard and suitable for measurement, but in reality worn inscriptions, missing edges, fine incisions, deep carvings, moss and dirt, moisture, and surrounding trees all affect accuracy. Even in wooden members, areas with fine ornamentation, repeating patterns, or strong shadows are prone to disruptions in the continuity of the three-dimensional shape. In other words, cultural properties particularly contain a mix of parts where "a rough approximation of the shape is sufficient" and parts that "must not be left ambiguous."

Therefore, in practice, rather than uniformly scanning the entire object, thinking in terms of dividing roles by component reduces failures. Capture overall shape and spatial relationships with smartphone LiDAR, and supplement detailed design elements and areas of deterioration with high-resolution photographs and close-up documentation. By clarifying this division of roles, it becomes easier to improve the quality of results even with limited time. The value of smartphone LiDAR lies not in completing everything with a single device, but in serving as an entry point to increase the efficiency of overall documentation.

Also, the scale of the target matters. While small artifacts to mid-sized spaces are relatively easy to handle, trying to capture a wide area all at once makes cumulative errors, positional shifts, and the coarseness of the data more noticeable. For targets such as large precincts, long stone walls, or groups of buildings spanning multiple structures, you should divide the area into sections for acquisition and decide the criteria for merging them in advance. The more you try to capture everything in one go, the harder the post-processing will be.

Basic 4: Design site conditions and acquisition procedures

The outcome of smartphone LiDAR is greatly influenced by how it is handled on site. At cultural heritage sites, not only the condition of the subject itself but also poor footing, access restrictions, visitor flow, insufficient lighting, outdoor weather, and a large number of obstacles affect measurement quality. Before deployment, it is important to design the acquisition procedure: where to enter, in what order to move around, which areas to prioritize, and which parts should be supplemented with auxiliary photographs.

Studies have shown that, as acquisition conditions for smartphone LiDAR, keeping the distance to the subject short, maintaining a consistent speed during capture, and ensuring appropriate lighting conditions such as natural light are important factors. Furthermore, there are reports that, depending on the conditions, faster scans can lead to better results; it is not simply a matter of moving slowly and carefully, but rather that being able to reproduce a stable procedure is more important.

In the field of cultural heritage, what you should be particularly mindful of is managing blind spots. Relying only on what can be seen from the front often fails to capture a surprisingly large number of losses and surface irregularities. The backs of pillars, the vertical faces of plinths, the areas under the eaves, rear joints, gaps between stones, and the inside of protective shelters—these less visible parts are often the ones that prove important when you review them later. That is why, on site, you need not a "walk-and-shoot" mindset but a "systematically cover the necessary surfaces" mindset.

Another thing that is easily overlooked is that, while cultural heritage cannot be moved, site conditions change. People may appear in images, sunlight varies, branches and leaves sway in the wind, surfaces become wet after rain, temporary fixtures may be placed—measurement conditions change with the time of day. If you plan to use the data for later comparisons, you should also record the acquisition time, weather, surrounding circumstances, and any access restrictions. Shape data alone cannot explain why the quality of a particular area is low.

Furthermore, when documenting cultural properties, consideration for safety and preservation is indispensable. Planning routes that do not require getting excessively close to the object, avoiding risks of contact or foot traffic pressure, and sharing the intended capture area with the site manager in advance are more important than equipment selection. Documentation is carried out for the sake of preservation, so it would be counterproductive if the recording work itself became a preservation risk.

Basic 5: Thinking about Data Storage, Sharing, and Reuse

A surprisingly significant difference when introducing smartphone LiDAR lies in post-acquisition operations. In the field there is a sense of accomplishment once three-dimensional data have been captured, but in cultural heritage practice the work that follows is longer and more important. If it is not documented who captured it, when, which object, to what extent, and under what conditions, later comparison and reuse are impossible. In discussions of cultural heritage documentation, the importance of consistent information management, long-term preservation, and metadata standards that support ongoing conservation and monitoring of changes in condition is repeatedly emphasized. cipaherit

For example, even if the same stone monument is recorded every year, if filenames are inconsistent and the scope and coordinates of capture are unclear, its value as comparative material is greatly diminished. Conversely, if the survey date, object name, part name, recorder, methods used, acquisition conditions, per-file descriptions, related photographs, and the presence or absence of known dimensions are organized, it becomes an asset that successors can use. Cultural properties are items that must be preserved over the long term through personnel changes, so records should be transferable within an organization rather than tied to individuals.

Also, considering that the uses of 3D models will expand to sharing and dissemination, preparing not only the heavy source data but also lightweight viewing data, still images, cross-sectional outputs, and annotated drawings will increase practicality. On World Heritage 3D platforms, 3D models are not simply stored but are used for storytelling and free exploration and presented in ways that are easy for users to understand. For 3D data of cultural properties as well, it is important to design systems that balance preservation and use. UNESCO World Heritage Centre

A perspective that ensures data authenticity is also necessary. If only the edited models remain, it can become unclear where the raw data ends and the processed results begin. In cultural heritage documentation, it is desirable to store raw data, processed data, and data for publication separately, and to retain the processing history. This can be greatly improved even without a large-scale system simply by establishing a folder structure and naming rules.

Because smartphone LiDAR makes data capture so easy, it is a technology that tends to be treated carelessly through storage and ongoing management. That is precisely why deciding at the time of introduction "which format to save in," "who will manage it," and "which deliverables will serve as the official record" is the quickest way to ensure on-site adoption.

How to Utilize Smartphone LiDAR in Cultural Heritage Practice

Considering the above, to make effective use of smartphone LiDAR in the cultural heritage field it is important not to start too large. Rather than attempting to comprehensively record an entire Important Cultural Property–level object right away, it is more realistic to begin with targets that are small in scale and easy to evaluate with a clear purpose—such as small stone monuments, parts of interiors, subjects for public use, or regular inspection points. In that way, by checking acquisition time, how gaps appear, the burden of post-processing, ease of sharing, and reproducibility, and by establishing operational rules, you are less likely to fail.

In practice, rather than treating smartphone LiDAR as a standalone万能 method, combining it with photographic records, manual measurements, existing drawings, and coordinate management produces more stable results. Smartphone LiDAR excels at quickly capturing overall shapes, preventing oversights, aiding spatial understanding, and sharing three-dimensional information among stakeholders. On the other hand, recording color and texture, scrutinizing fine details, conducting strict dimensional verification, and standardizing baselines for long-term comparisons are more reliably achieved by using other recording methods or supplementary information. The clearer this division of roles becomes, the less likely on-site decisions are to fluctuate.

Also, it is important not to evaluate cultural property documentation solely by the “results visible on site.” The advantage of smartphone LiDAR is that it makes it easier to convert spatial information that existed only in an investigator’s head into three-dimensional information that stakeholders can share. This makes it easier to align understanding with staff who have not visited the site, and facilitates meetings and the consideration of preservation policies. For practitioners, this improvement in shareability can be the most significant effect of adopting the technology.

Furthermore, in cultural heritage documentation it is important to be clear about exactly which location was recorded. Even when three-dimensional data exist, if the survey extent or the target location is ambiguous, comparing with data from other times or integrating it with other materials becomes difficult. In particular, when considering the arrangement of stone structures, the spatial relationships of features, the management of repaired areas, or fixed-point re-surveys, the accuracy of positional information cannot be ignored alongside shape data.

In that sense, combining smartphone LiDAR with high-precision positional information is an effective approach to make cultural‑heritage recording more practical in professional use. For example, if you accurately record the survey locations, the boundaries of the recorded area, the positions of fixed‑point observations, and the coordinates of important parts, the meaning of the three‑dimensional data becomes much clearer. If you want not only to preserve the current condition of a cultural property in 3D but also to manage where and when it was recorded as field coordinates, there is value in using a high‑precision positioning system that can be handled on a smartphone. LRTK, as an iPhone‑mounted GNSS high‑precision positioning device, makes it easy to streamline such position confirmation and coordinate management of recording extents, and is a suitable choice for sites that want to carry out simple surveys of cultural properties and on‑site coordinate checks. The idea of preserving form with smartphone LiDAR and confirming position with LRTK makes the practical work of cultural‑heritage recording easier to handle.

Summary

Smartphone LiDAR can be used to document cultural heritage. However, that answer does not mean “anything can be recorded precisely.” For uses such as understanding current conditions, creating overview records, producing 3D data for sharing, initial investigation, and laying the groundwork for public use, it can be a highly mobile and effective means. On the other hand, in situations with high demands—such as precise mapping, faithful reproduction of fine ornamental details, long-term displacement monitoring, or serving as baseline material for restoration design—you should not rely on smartphone LiDAR alone, but assume it will be combined with other methods and reference information.

The basics to address before implementation are: deciding the purpose of the recording in advance; assessing the required accuracy according to the intended use; understanding the compatibility with the subject; designing the site conditions and data acquisition procedures; and planning operations that cover storage, sharing, and reuse. If these five are in order, smartphone LiDAR can fully demonstrate its effectiveness in cultural heritage practice.

In documenting cultural properties, not only the shape but also the positional accuracy becomes important later on. If three-dimensional data obtained with smartphone LiDAR can be managed by linking it to the coordinates of survey locations and key parts, it becomes easier to compare, share, re-survey, and track repair histories. If you want to make cultural property records easier to handle on site, it is important to consider 3D recording and high-precision positioning together rather than separately. By combining smartphone-linked high-precision positioning devices such as LRTK, you can smoothly carry out simple surveys and coordinate checks for cultural properties while further increasing the practical value of records acquired with smartphone LiDAR.