In three experiments we examined the relative effectiveness of motion parallax and two perspective cues for the perception of size and distance. The experimental stimuli consisted of two ellipses (a standard and a comparison) and a horizontal line that indicated the horizon. The subject's task was to report the apparent size and distance of the comparison stimulus relative to the standard stimulus. Two perspective cues were given by the relative heights of the two stimuli and the absolute height of the standard stimulus below the horizon. Motion parallax was defined by both the ratio and the difference in angular velocities between the two stimuli on the display. In experiment 1 we examined the effects of the two perspective cues and the motion parallax. In experiment 2 we eliminated the horizon line, and examined the role of the horizon in size and distance perception. In experiment 3 we separately evaluated the effects of motion parallax and the relative height cues. The results from the three experiments showed that the effect of motion parallax and the two perspective cues were different in three ways. First, the relative effectiveness of motion parallax and the two perspective cues differed for size and distance estimates. For size estimates, the motion parallax was more effective than the perspective cues (experiments 1 and 3). For distance estimates, the motion parallax was as effective as the two perspective cues (experiments 1 and 3). Second, the role of the horizon differed for size and distance estimates. The size estimates were strongly affected by the horizon, while the distance estimates were not affected much by the horizon (experiment 2). Third, the effective perspective cues differed for the size estimates and the distance estimates: size estimates were affected by the perspective cues as a combination of the horizon and relative height; distance estimates were affected by the perspective cues as an interaction between the absolute and relative heights without the horizon line.