Is it possible to find the real size of this road sign using this picture only?
>>16534923Sure, look up the codes regulating the size of road signs in that state.If it's not standardized then the dimensions of the posts holding the sign up likely are.
>>16534923no, you need 2 pictures from a different angle and some known 3d object to get a basis for angles and distances
>>16534923>>16534924On the posts(which are not head on so you can ratio apparent parallel face length with the signs), they appear to be 4 by 4s, but remember that US lumber is fake and gay and the sizes are lies(but still standardized).
>>16534983This may be a shit thread but I still find the notion that fucking wood is fake and gay hilarious and then it's doubly hilarious when it's not a meme but jews have actually been shaving down lumber from the original dimensions coin clipping style because why not.
>>16534983>>16534989This is why libertarians can't understand the real world.>lets ditch all regulations>there is no way people would build out of toothpicks to maximize profit
>>16534989The sizes for US lumber are accurate for the rough cut. It has nothing to do with scamming buyers. The rough cuts just aren't renamed as they're processed. It just so happens that rough cut size standardization is what set in first so those measurements became the standard.The alternatives would be either the name for buyers dealing with the rough cuts would be wrong (which doesn't solve anything) or the name changes as the wood is processed (which is a great way to end up with size standards getting mixed up constantly like in literally every other industry with competing standards).I swear to fuck, not everything is a fucking scam.
>>16535001>half an inch lost to planingSharpen your fucking saw.
>>16535001If that was the case then dimensional accuracy would be increasing over time, it's a scam.
The route marker is likely to be 24x24 (in inches).https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2d.htm#table2D01
>>16534944I found this different view (at https://www.usends.com/51.html).
>>16534923>using this picture only?Nope, only relative to other things in the picture.
>>16535001There's nothing stopping the manufacturers from doing what they were doing before and delivering a piece of wood that's actually 2x4. The fact of the matter is that they simply changed that 2x4 could be as little as 1.5x3.5 in 1964 and so it was because they could get away with smaller pieces of wood. That's 35% reduction going straight into their pockets. Like the image above shows lumber that's even older than that that could be even bigger than 2x4 because they expected that it would be 2x4 after the workman finished it on site.>or the name changes as the wood is processed (which is a great way to end up with size standards getting mixed up constantly like in literally every other industry with competing standards).If a lumber mill can't figure out that they need a piece of wood that's slightly bigger to produce a finished product at the correct dimensions then they really shouldn't be in the industry in the first place. Imagine if any other industry that sold to consumers worked like this. Your 24 oz box of special K cereal? Well that's actually 200 oz because that's how much the ingredients weighed at the farm and it would be really antisemitic to name things according to their actual dimensions.
this happens with GB and GiB. merchants steal bytes all the time
>>16534989Something similar happened with iron pipes. The gist is that old pipes used to be thick but as metallurgy improved they were made of thinner metal. Not extremely thin because they need room to make threads and the. I think the newer pipes (newer here means over 100 year old) have an internal diameter bigger than you'd expect from the nominal size.
>>16535076>There's nothing stopping the manufacturers from doing what they were doing before and delivering a piece of wood that's actually 2x4Except then the rough cut wouldn't be 2x4, my illiterate friend.
>>16535076>If a lumber mill can't figure out that they need a piece of wood that's slightly bigger to produce a finished product at the correct dimensions then they really shouldn't be in the industry in the first place.So you expect the lumber mill to order 2x4s that aren't 2x4 to make 2x4s that are 2x4 to solve the problem of 2x4s not being 2x4 even though that just moves the problem?>Imagine if any other industry that sold to consumers worked like thisI direct your attention to computer memory. A commercial gigabyte is literally ~7% smaller than a computing gigabyte.
>>16535119And that matters how exactly? The cow that made the burger wasn't quarter pound either?>>16535125>So you expect the lumber mill to order 2x4s that aren't 2x4 to make 2x4s that are 2x4 to solve the problem of 2x4s not being 2x4 even though that just moves the problem?I expect lumbermill to order what ever they need to order to make a product that is 2x4 when they call it the 2x4Right now they are ordering 2x4's that are 2x4 to create 2x4 that aren't 2x4's to make a 2x4 that's not a 2x4 even though that just moves the problem to the customer. No difference, they order a size, then they shave it down and ship it off. It doesn't matter to them what these are called they are a business they can keep track of names.>I direct your attention to computer memory. A commercial gigabyte is literally ~7% smaller than a computing gigabyte.Another problem to be solved then
>>16535146>The cow that made the burger wasn't quarter pound either?Is now a bad time to mention that quarter pounders are actually a quarter pound before cooking and they lose over 25% of their mass during the cooking process? Really rake-stepping through this convo, huh?>I expect lumbermill to order what ever they need to order to make a product that is 2x4 when they call it the 2x4And what product do you expect them to order? Cause at the moment they order a 2x4?>Another problem to be solved thenNo. You're just a fucking idiot.
>>16535598>Is now a bad time to mention that quarter pounders are actually a quarter pound before cooking and they lose over 25% of their mass during the cooking process? Quite literally another case of shrinkflation there which just supports my point. They don't name it the 800kg burger because they make it from a cow that weights that much. A lumber mill doesn't have to name a product based on what they make it out of either.>And what product do you expect them to order?Do you have reading comprehension problems? I expect lumbermill to order what ever they need to order to make a product that is 2x4 when they call it the 2x4. They can either order something that ends up into a 2x4 or call it what ever they end up making. It's not difficult.
>>16535001
If the standard speed roadsign is 24 inches wide by 30 inches tall, the total height of signs plus pole is 174 inches roughly. By using this estimate, it equals 14.5 feet tall.
>>16536017>Quite literally another case of shrinkflationNow you're just using big words you don't know the meaning of. Please stop. You've embarrassed yourself enough.Shrinkflation doesn't mean the product literally fucking shrinks. It means over time the amount of product being sold per unit has been reduced while the price has remained the same.Fucking shrinky dinks aren't fucking shrinkflation.>Do you have reading comprehension problems?Yes. I can't comprehend how someone as fucking stupid as you could exist.
>>16536101>Shrinkflation doesn't mean the product literally fucking shrinksIt quite literally means that. If a 2x4 gets you less wood every year then that's basically the textbook definition of shrinkflation shrink·fla·tion ˌshriŋk-ˈflā-shən : the practice of reducing a product's amount or volume per unit while continuing to offer it at the same priceI accept your concession
>>16536124>If a 2x4 gets you less wood every yearIt doesn't. 2x4 wood size is standardized and has been since the 1950s.I cannot emphasize this enough, you're a fucking idiot.
>>16536134They last shrunk the standard in 1960's and that's just the official measures. On the actual yards the situation is progressively worse year on year. The fact that you even got this wrong despite me telling you this earlier in this thread kinda speaks of your abilities to be wrong.
>>16536157>On the actual yards the situation is progressively worse year on yearNo. It isn't. If we're reached the blatant, easily disprovable lying part of the discussion, we're done. The size is industry regulated and boards have to be delivered within specific tolerances.
>>16534923Have you tried counting the pixels?
>>16535085>Unit conversion is theft.JHFC
>>16536235Its not possible to determine sizes without having a reference on the screen. You need two pictures from different angles and some known object present in both pictures, as a reference.Our eyes can gauge depth because the distance between the eyes is known by the brain. That distance works in he role of that reference object i mentioned, still you need two pctures
>>16534923photogrammetry generally requires several picturesthe best you can do in this case is stadiametric measurements
>>16534996The fake and gay regulations of lumber in north america are all regulated.
>>16535076Pipe also has a nominal size but it's bigger than you'd expect.
>>16534923I had to do something similar to this irl to estimate the size of a dead snake, so I used the standard lane width of the area as a starting point. Could also use the lane marker stripe width.I think both might be a little more accurate than sign posts given the sometimes sketchy nature of lumber cuts.The size of the signs, and printed characters, thereupon should be well standardized, too.
