A comparison of lidar accuracy across iPhone models, with implications for reproducibility and cross-study comparison

iPhone lidar facilitates mobile handheld laser scanning, with applications spanning archaeology, engineering, and forestry, but hardware updates impact small object scanning. As older models are discontinued, it is imperative to ascertain how previous assumptions hold across newer lidar sensors, to safeguard reproducibility and cross-study comparison. Lidar accuracy was compared between the iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro and a commercial handheld scanner, the GeoSlam Zeb Horizon. Fifteen objects (0.8–42.5 cm) were scanned at 0.01–3.00 m. Root mean squared errors (RMSE) of overall point cloud distances to known validation primitive shapes were nearly identical between the iPhone 15 (2.06 cm) and the iPhone 12 Pro (2.05 cm). Direct cloud-to-cloud comparisons showed an RMSE of 0.90 cm between iPhones. X, Y, Z, dimension estimates were often slightly more accurate for the 12 Pro than the 15 Pro, likely due to point count differences by distance. The iPhone 15 Pro performed better when scanning small objects at close range, but worse at greater distances. Zeb Horizon RMSEs were consistently a tenth of iPhone Pro lidar. Human decisions (e.g. app choice, settings) impact iPhone lidar accuracy more than differences between models, with the similar accuracies of iPhone 12 Pro and 15 Pro implying consistency across devices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Remote Sensing Letters
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704x.2026.2720055
Primary Topic
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

A comparison of lidar accuracy across iPhone models, with implications for reproducibility and cross-study comparison

Rachel Gaulton, Broghan M. Erland
Remote Sensing Letters
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
article

A comparison of lidar accuracy across iPhone models, with implications for reproducibility and cross-study comparison

Rachel Gaulton, Broghan M. Erland
article en

Abstract

iPhone lidar facilitates mobile handheld laser scanning, with applications spanning archaeology, engineering, and forestry, but hardware updates impact small object scanning. As older models are discontinued, it is imperative to ascertain how previous assumptions hold across newer lidar sensors, to safeguard reproducibility and cross-study comparison. Lidar accuracy was compared between the iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro and a commercial handheld scanner, the GeoSlam Zeb Horizon. Fifteen objects (0.8–42.5 cm) were scanned at 0.01–3.00 m. Root mean squared errors (RMSE) of overall point cloud distances to known validation primitive shapes were nearly identical between the iPhone 15 (2.06 cm) and the iPhone 12 Pro (2.05 cm). Direct cloud-to-cloud comparisons showed an RMSE of 0.90 cm between iPhones. X, Y, Z, dimension estimates were often slightly more accurate for the 12 Pro than the 15 Pro, likely due to point count differences by distance. The iPhone 15 Pro performed better when scanning small objects at close range, but worse at greater distances. Zeb Horizon RMSEs were consistently a tenth of iPhone Pro lidar. Human decisions (e.g. app choice, settings) impact iPhone lidar accuracy more than differences between models, with the similar accuracies of iPhone 12 Pro and 15 Pro implying consistency across devices.

Remote Sensing LettersVol. 17(12)
Fera Science (United Kingdom) (GB), Newcastle University (GB)
Newcastle University, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.