Dear authors,

thank you for the revised manuscript. I have send it out to one of the original reviewers, who was happy with the changes. I largely agree, but I found a number of typos and unclear formulations, which I ask you to revise. Please look carefully through the manuscript for further typos, slight grammatical errors and unclear formulations. I am not sure I found everything.

With best wishes, Jens Turowski


1.9 …corrected for…
1.14 Here, the authors highlight the uncertainties. This point has not been treated in the discussion, but it would be good to have a paragraph on it.
1.15 The last sentence of the abstract is unspecific. What insights did you gain?
2.14 …not yet well understood.
2.15 …landslide volume is correlated…
2.17 Ekström and Stark could be cited here as well.
2.21 …by Levy et al. predicts that…
2.26 …to quantify landslide dynamics…
2.28 …quantifying landslide properties…
2.31 …of the generated high-frequency radiation and its link with landslide dynamics.
2.33 …can potentially originate…
2.35 this statement does not make sense, an impulse cannot be proportional to its dynamics (I have no idea what this means). Rewrite.
3.14 …corrected for…
3.28 …25 frames per second…
3.30 How was time synchronization done? Did the camera have its own GPS transceiver or was this done manually?
4.7 reformulate more carefully. The pixel size essentially gives the error of the location. There will also be an error associated with the orthorectification procedure. Can you say something about this?
10.6 …several dynamic quantities…
11.4 rather than saying ‘dynamic quantities’, the authors could be more specific and say energy and impulse.
12.1 delete ‘found’
12.20 …which may absorb…
12.20 ‘consolidated’ and ‘unconsolidated’ do not seem to be the correct words here. Maybe change to soft and hard rocks or describe the igneous and metamorphic rocks as crystalline.
12.24 This has been stated already in 12.1
12.30 A third point is that the relations are likely site-specific (for example due to the substrate dependency discussed before). This is important and should be explicitly mentioned here.
12.30 the uncertainties highlighted in the abstract could also be included in this list.

Acknowledgements: it is customary to thank the reviewers.

Dear authors,
thank you for the revisions. I think the paper is ready now and will recommend acceptance.
Best wishes, Jens Turowski

Dear Clement and colleagues,

Thank you for working with AE Jens Turowski and his referees to optimize your manuscript. I agree with the AE that the manuscript is ready for publication. I encourage you to respond quickly to any prompts from the Copernicus publishers to minimize the time to print.

Thank you for chosing ESurf.

Niels Hovius