Flow velocity is one of the most important hydrodynamic variables for both channelized (rill and gullies) and interrill erosive phenomena. The dye tracer technique to measure surface flow velocity V_s is based on the measurement of the travel time of a tracer needed to cover a known distance. The measured V_s must be corrected to obtain the mean flow velocity V using a factor α_v = V/V_s which is generally empirically deduced. The V_s measurement can be influenced by the method applied to time the travel of the dye‐tracer and α_v can vary in different flow conditions. Experiments were performed by a fixed bed small flume simulating a rill channel for two roughness conditions (sieved soil, gravel). The comparison between a chronometer‐based (CB) and video‐based (VB) technique to measure V_s was carried out. For each slope‐discharge combination, 20 measurements of V_s, characterized by a sample mean V_m, were carried out. For both techniques, the frequency distributions of V_s/V_m resulted independent of slope and discharge. For a given technique, all measurements resulted normally distributed, with a mean equal to one, and featured by a low variability. Therefore, V_m was considered representative of surface flow velocity. Regardless of roughness, the V_m values obtained by the two techniques were very close and characterized by a good measurement precision. The developed analysis on α_v highlighted that it is not correlated with Reynolds number for turbulent flow regime. Moreover, α_v is correlated neither with the Froude number nor with channel slope. However, the analysis of the empirical frequency distributions of the correction factor demonstrated a slope effect. For each technique (CB, VB)‐roughness (soil, gravel) combination, a constant correction factor was statistically representative even if resulted in less accurate V estimations compared to those yielded by the slope‐specific correction factor.