Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the diverse clinimetric aspects of three-dimensional imaging measurements of TBSA in clinical practice compared with the methods currently used in clinical practice (i.e., the rule of nines and palm method) to measure TBSA in clinical practice. Method: To assess reliability, two independent researchers measured the TBSAs of 48 burn patients using Artec MHT™ Scanner and software. Subsequently, a resident and burn specialist estimated the TBSA of the same wounds using the rule of nines and palm method. Results: Three-dimensional imaging showed excellent inter-observer reliability, with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.99, standard error of measurement (SEM) of 0.054, and limits of agreement (LoA) of ±0.15 × the mean TBSA (between the measurements of two researchers). The inter-observer reliability of the methods used in current clinical practice was less reliable, with an ICC of 0.91, SEM of 0.300 and LoA of ±0.78 × the mean TBSA. The inter-observer reliability was least reliable between three-dimensional imaging and the residents compared with the burn specialists for the estimated TBSA, with an ICC of 0.68, SEM of 0.69 and LoA of ±1.49 × the mean TBSA. Conclusion: The inter-observer reliability of three-dimensional imaging was superior compared with the rule of nines and palm method.