The PWM section needs some work. In this particular review it's said that "brightness control corresponds to that of an AMOLED panel with permanent DC dimming" yet in the pictures you can see very clear and big pulses.

This brings me to another issue: where's the scale in the PWM pics? Is the pulse actually tiny but extremely zoomed in? Can you directly compare the graphical presentation to other reviews? And why is the first pic usually very different in behaviour compared to the other PWM pics?

As is it's impossible to make definitive conclusions about the PWM from those pics, especially since there sometimes seems to be clear disconnect between what the pictures show and what's said in the text.

I would like to see color saturation/color space in vivid mode. It would be possible?

I would like to see color saturation/color space in vivid mode. It would be possible?

All smartphones, including top ones, take terrible pictures at default settings.

My smartphone makes 11-13Mb jpeg at 13Mp and the difference even with the top smartphones of 2023 is immediately visible in its favor. Everywhere there is a lack of clarity, oversharp and "plasticine" details. Only the size of the compressed image determines the quality. Or you need to shoot in raw, but the stupid crowd is too lazy to deal with raw processing. That is why most smartphone owners, even with good sensors and optics, get disgusting images at the output. Glamorous girls and boys shoot everything in the default settings in the factory software and thus sign the verdict with their shots. But for instagrams and Facebooks, it will do - and this breed of people doesn't need more ...

Well, I am surprised, but not in positive way. Photos taken by this phone are, in my opinion, horrible. Thousand euros for phone making these photos? Colors are OK, but sharpness is not. They all lack details. I (still) have LG V30 with GCAM in it and it makes so good looking photos that I am amazed to this day. Why bigger sensors, when postprocessing is not good? Why larger lenses, if they lack optical quality? Camera is one of the most crucial parts of smartphones and after all these years of development, we got here? Like Samsung is even faking Moon shots to make them look better?   

Quote from: Retrotar on March 15, 2023, 12:14:20It can take great pictures day and night

theregister.com/2023/03/13/samsung_fake_moon_pics/

Why watch movies on your smartphone? I watch it on a projector at home. Why listen to music on a bright screen?

Screens in top Samsungs (but not in A series) give a green tint at a large angle. Proven on multiple instances.

Samsung Marketer - pls, relogin...

Bought the Samsung Galaxy S23+ smartphone, I'm thrilled with it! The first thing that struck me was the quality of the screen. It is very bright and clear, which makes watching movies and listening to music on the phone incredibly enjoyable. I also appreciated its large screen size, which allows you to see more information and navigate through applications better. The camera is top notch too. It can take great pictures day and night and also provides great optical stabilisation for video recording. I love photography, so this was an important criterion for me when choosing a phone. Performance was also an important factor for me, and I was not disappointed in this regard. It runs very fast and smoothly, which makes using apps and switching between them very comfortable. I also like the design It looks very modern and stylish, and its slim profile and ergonomic design make it comfortable for everyday use. Overall, I am very happy with my choice. It's a great phone with high quality screen, camera, performance, other mobilespecs are also top notch.