Regarding Pixel Scaling and Height

[FantaRin_The_First]

As it implies from the title, I have a question 'bout pixel scaling and heights, you see... er... put it simply, let's say that I have something I want pixel scaled and that I have a very notable tree and have the height of said tree- however, due to an odd camera angle, the tree I want to use is half-covered up, and the tree itself is the only thing that can reliably be used to scale the heights of the thing I want pixel scaled; so what do I do here?

Do I assume the height of the tree is the same? Do I just divide the height of it in half? Does it depend on how covered it is and its elevation- like if it is flat on the ground or if it is high up?

BTW, the tree, in this case, is only meant to serve as an example and get the general geist of what I am trying to say across to everyone. I repeat, what is above is purely hypothetical.

 

[RemainsAE]

As it implies from the title, I have a question 'bout pixel scaling and heights, you see... er... put it simply, let's say that I have something I want pixel scaled and that I have a very notable tree and have the height of said tree- however, due to an odd camera angle, the tree I want to use is half-covered up, and the tree itself is the only thing that can reliably be used to scale the heights of the thing I want pixel scaled; so what do I do here?

Do I assume the height of the tree is the same? Do I just divide the height of it in half? Does it depend on how covered it is and its elevation- like if it is flat on the ground or if it is high up?

BTW, the tree, in this case, is only meant to serve as an example and get the general geist of what I am trying to say across to everyone. I repeat, what is above is purely hypothetical.

I mean you can also measure diameter of the tree if you are trying to do that, I think assumptions are fine for stuff like that though as long as they are more lowballed than high