Welcome to TONMO, the premier cephalopod interest community, and birthplace of #WorldOctopusDay and #CephalopodAwarenessDays. Founded in 2000, we are a large community of experts, hobbyists and enthusiasts, some of whom come together when we host our biennial conference. To join in on the fun, sign up. You can also become a Supporter for just $50/year to remove all ads and enjoy other perks. Follow us on Twitter for more cephy goodness.
Here is the problem with the high res photo of the squid, I was hired for the dive mission as a diver, all footage from the cameras became property of History Channel at the end of the Expedition. In fact I have been under orders to stay quiet about this whole thing untill now. I do have shots from my personal camera but they were taken during the mission, at depths reachable by divers on rebreathers.
Here is a shot of the squid that carried the camera down deep for us. I was in the process of recovering the camera when the squid decided to go for the front of the nearest thing. You can see the camera still attached to the squid, the other end of the cable is in my hand. All the footage of the big squid was caught on that small camera.
Hmmmm.... I watched the video over and over, but I'm not quite sure what led you to the latter conclusion. The early squid(s) are(/is) definitely average sized Humboldt, but on the big one at the end I fail to see hooks, making a really large Humboldt less likely. I also fail to see big diamondshaped fins, however, although I sometimes think i can see tips at one stage, halfway lost in the noise.... You're right about scale being impossible to tell, but the flow of arms and speed/momentum of movement do at least suggest something fairly large, perhaps not truly gigantic, and we could even go as far as to calculate size based on amount of lux coming from the crittercam lights and the dimness of the image...