The authors provide a profound case study investigating a landslide with different methods using UAV image data. Two provided reviews, which are strongly appreciated, confirm the solid work done by the authors. The study can become an important resource for researchers studying landslides. However, before the manuscript can be published minor revision would be required.
The authors should put some more emphasis on the novel insight that they could gain with their approach. Thus, in the introduction chapter I suggest another (short) paragraph displaying the recent findings in landslide processes observations. Therefore, in the discussion chapter the authors could pick up on those findings to better display their studies benefit in this regard (and in general compare their own results to other landslide research), i.e. focusing on the internal dynamics (e.g. that an increase of earthflow activity has been measured but no more output into the river was observed).
Furthermore, the authors give additional information regarding monitoring methods for landslides in the introduction chapter as suggested by the reviews. At the moment these additions seem to miss some linkage to their own study. Thus, I suggest to reconsider these sections and more clearly highlight e.g. what previous studies could not comply/were missing to what the authors aimed for and thus more distinctly justify the authors methodological approach.
There are a few more minor comments that should be addressed, which are mentioned in the attached document.
I encourage the authors to correspond to these minor issues before the article can be published. Thank you for your consideration of this special issue and for your submission.

Dear Authors,
I am delighted to inform you that your submission to ESurf has now been accepted for publication as a final paper. Thank you very much for all your hard work with the manuscript!
Best wishes,
Tom Coulthard