Five Best Video Editors

Whether you're a semi-pro looking to show off your skills, or you just want to throw together a video for your YouTube subscribers, there are tons of great options. We couldn't possibly highlight the over two dozen nominees you offered, but here's a look at the top five.

iMovie (Mac OS)

Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro Review - Part I

The early 2011 MacBook Pro is honestly Apple's best effort to date. Only using quad-core CPUs on the 15 and 17-inch models, and offering an optional Thunderbolt Display that can act as a modern day dock makes this platform, particularly the 15-inch model, the perfect candidate for users who want the power and flexibility of a desktop with the portability of a notebook. 


Apple gets the mobile revolution in more ways than one, and its MacBook Pro/Thunderbolt Display combo is the perfect example of that.

It's this very combination that I've been using, partially since the introduction of the Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro earlier this year (the Thunderbolt Display didn't arrive until later). I've been quite happy with the setup. With the exception of lackluster Quick Sync adoption by Apple and obviously limited GPU options, I have very few major complaints.


Late last month, Apple updated its 2011 MacBook Pro lineup - likely the first and last update before Apple adopts Ivy Bridge in Q2 next year. We got our hands on the new base 15-inch MacBook Pro configuration, which received one of the more substantial upgrades over the previous model. As this is still a fairly minor upgrade, be sure to read our original review of the platform for a deeper dive into all of the aspects of the system.

Late 2011 MacBook Pro Lineup
	13-inch (low end)	13-inch (high end)	15-inch (low end)	15-inch (high end)	17-inch
Dimensions	0.95 H x 12.78 W x 8.94 D		0.95 H x 14.35 W x 9.82 D		0.98 H x 15.47 W x 10.51 D
Weight	4.5 lbs (2.04 kg)		5.6 lbs (2.54 kg)		6.6 lbs (2.99 kg)
CPU	2.4 GHz dual-core Core i5	2.8 GHz dual-core Core i7	2.2 GHz quad-core Core i7	2.4 GHz quad-core Core i7	2.4 GHz quad-core Core i7
GPU	Intel HD 3000 Graphics		Intel HD 3000 + AMD Radeon HD 6750M (512MB)	Intel HD 3000 + AMD Radeon HD 6770M (1GB)	Intel HD 3000 + AMD Radeon HD 6770M (1GB)
RAM	4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (8GB max)
HDD	500GB 5400 RPM	750GB 5400 RPM	500GB 5400 RPM	750GB 5400 RPM	750GB 5400 RPM
Display Resolution	1280x800		1440x900 (1680x1050 optional)		1920x1200
Ports	Gigabit LAN, Firewire 800, Thunderbolt, 2x USB 2.0, SDHC slot, combined audio in/out jack		Gigabit LAN, Firewire 800, Thunderbolt, 2x USB 2.0, SDHC slot, separate audio in/out jacks		Gigabit LAN, Firewire 800, Thunderbolt, 3x USB 2.0, separate audio in/out jacks, ExpressCard 34 slot
Battery Capacity	63.5Wh		77.5Wh		95Wh
Price	$1,199	$1,499	$1,799	$2,199	$2,499

Silicon Updates 


The focus of Apple's late 2011 update, despite rumors to the contrary, was on the silicon inside the platform. As the Mac business is a relatively mature one, we can expect a slower pace of chassis and design upgrades compared to the iPhone/iPad businesses for example.We'll start with the CPU, the lesser updated chip in the new MacBook Pro. System pricing hasn't changed, but CPU speeds have all gone up. 

 Just as before the 15-inch MacBook Pro is only available with a quad-core Intel Core i7 CPU (codename Sandy Bridge). The $1799 configuration goes from a 2.0GHz i7 to a 2.2GHz model. Be warned, this isn't the same 2.2GHz model that was available as an upgrade earlier this year though.

A quick run of Cinebench points out that the 2.2GHz i7 in our system may be a Core i7 2675QM. The original 2.2GHz option was a Core i7 2720QM. What's the difference between the two? Not a whole lot.

 Max turbo is down a bit on the 2675QM. It was 3.3GHz on the 2720, but now it's 3.1GHz. The two, three and four core turbo limits are also down by 200MHz compared to what they were in early 2011. If you didn't have a 2.2GHz early 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro, these differences likely don't mean anything. If for whatever reason you're comparing to an early 2011 2.2GHz model, you'll see a slight regression in CPU bound performance.

The on-die GPU is a hair slower as well. You still get an Intel HD 3000 GPU (12 EUs) but the max turbo moves from 1.3GHz down to 1.2GHz. Or if you prefer another way of looking at it, the 2675QM is the same as the 2670QM, except the GPU is able to clock 100MHz higher (1.2GHz vs. 1.1GHz).

Apple 15-inch Late 2011 MacBook Pro CPU Comparison
	2.0GHz quad-core	2.2GHz quad-core	2.3GHz quad-core
Intel Model	Core i7-2635QM	Intel Core i7-2720QM	Intel Core i7-2820QM
Base Clock Speed	2.0GHz	2.2GHz	2.3GHz
Max SC Turbo	2.9GHz	3.3GHz	3.4GHz
Max DC Turbo	2.8GHz	3.2GHz	3.3GHz
Max QC Turbo	2.6GHz	3.0GHz	3.1GHz
L3 Cache	6MB	6MB	8MB
AES-NI	No	Yes	Yes
VT-x	Yes	Yes	Yes
VT-d	No	Yes	Yes
TDP	45W	45W	45W

The upgraded 15-inch configuration comes with an all new Sandy Bridge SKU: the Core i7 2760QM running at 2.4GHz. Unlike the old 2.3GHz part, the 2760QM still only has a 6MB L3 cache. You do get higher base and turbo speeds. There's also a new 2.5GHz quad-core option that can run at up to 3.5GHz with a single core active. That's an absolutely insane frequency for a notebook. Notebook-as-a-desktop users will appreciate the flexibility here. 

All of the new CPUs support AES-NI, although once again Apple is the victim of Intel's silly segmentation. The entry level 2.2GHz part does not support VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O), which allows virtual machines to have direct access to I/O devices (including PCIe GPUs). I'm not sure if any current virtualization software for OS X supports VT-d, but the absence of the feature is important to note nonetheless. The rest of the CPU lineup supports VT-d. 

Battery Life

TDPs haven't changed, nor has the MacBook Pro's battery capacity, so overall battery life should (and does) remain relatively unchanged from the early 2011 models. Worst case scenario you can expect around 2.5 hours of battery life under load. With moderate load expect 4 - 5 hours of use on a single charge. And under a very light load you can easily exceed 7 hours.

I ran our normal battery life suite, however Lion has made some of the numbers a little less comparable than I would've liked. The lighter use cases (e.g. our web browsing tests) see a drop compared to our older Snow Leopard results. Under full load the new platform, even while running Lion, actually did a bit better than its predecessor. All in all I'd say the new MacBook Pro is pretty consistent with its predecessor - Lion just threw a wrench in a lot of our battery life comparisons so we'll be starting over from scratch in building our new database.

Apple iPhone 4S Review

The iPhone 4S is a marked improvement over last year’s model, ensuring that the iPhone continues to lead the smartphone pack in real-world experience, if not in increasingly meaningless specs.

After spending nearly a month testing the iPhone 4S, I’m confident when I say that not only is it a significantly better phone than the iPhone 4, it’s the best smartphone I’ve tested to date. Despite the fact that most upgrades in the 4S won’t be obvious to most users, the phone is a marked improvement over last year’s model, ensuring that the iPhone continues to lead the smartphone pack in real-world experience, if not in increasingly meaningless specs.



That said, there are two very visible enhancements in the iPhone 4S--context-aware voice recognition and an improved camera. But, the real win for Apple is the dramatically improved cellular antenna--since moving from the iPhone 4 (AT&T) to the iPhone 4S (also on AT&T), I’ve experienced a fraction of the dropped calls that I had before.

Reintroducing A5
What exactly is the real world impact of the iPhone 4S’s dual-core CPU? It’s about twice as fast in benchmarks--the Sunspider Javascript benchmark runs on the iPhone 4S in about half the time it takes on the iPhone 4 (both running iOS 5). In benchmarks, the jump from a single core, Cortex A8-based ARM CPU to a dual-core, Cortex A9-based ARM CPU makes a significant difference.

However, in most of the apps I tested, the performance boost is barely noticeable. Some applications launch faster on the 4S than the 4, but the delta is not something you’re likely to notice. I also tested a handful of apps that require more CPU power, and some were noticeably faster. For example, some panorama stitchers seem to do their business faster on the iPhone 4S than on the iPhone 4.

The A5 also includes an updated GPU, which Apple advertises as “up to 7x faster than the iPhone 4”. While this claim doesn’t hold up to benchmarks, the new iPhone delivers a noticeably smoother frame rate in some of the graphically intense 3D games I tested. This observation is backed up by benchmark scores from AnandTech, where the iPhone 4S shows roughly 2.3x better performance in AnandTech’s Unreal Engine 3 benchmark. As always, there’s a gotcha. Most iOS game developers use extra graphical horsepower to increase image quality, not improve framerate, so even though the hardware in the iPhone 4S is more capable, many games simply won’t take advantage of it.

Say Hi to Siri

Voice control in phones is nothing new, iOS 3 included a handful of voice commands, Android has had commands and dictation since Froyo rolled out last year, and Windows Phone 7 added voice support with the Mango update. Siri goes one step beyond these early offerings though, adding rudimentary natural language parsing to the voice control mix.

What is natural language parsing? It sounds deceptively simple, instead of recognizing a command or two for each task, Siri recognizes dozens of potential instructions for every task. More importantly, Siri is aware of context in a way that other voice control implementations aren’t--it has access to your complete calendar, address list, to-do list, location, music library, and more.

Most other implementations require one very specific phrase for each task, for example on Android I can say “call Norman Chan mobile” and the phone will call Norm’s mobile phone. However, Siri will recognize dozens of combinations of commands and variations on Norm’s name. This means that everything from a straight Android-style command to “Get Norm on the line” has the desired result. You can even assign relationships to people, so you can tell Siri to call your wife, best friend, mother, or son.

You can also use Siri to send and read text messages, send and read emails, make appointments, check your calendar, check the weather, set a timer or alarm, get directions, play music, and a whole host of other tasks. Some of these are very useful--I find myself using Siri to set timers while cooking and text while driving all the time--but the more complex your task, the more likely Siri is to break down.

For example, a simple “Tell my wife I’m on my way home” consistently works really well. When you try anything more complex than that, like using multiple sentences or proper nouns that aren’t in your contact list, Siri’s success rate goes way down. For example, I couldn’t get Siri to recognize “Wow, I didn’t know there were four Jaws movies” despite trying multiple times. Siri doesn’t handle edits particularly well either. You can’t make small, granular changes to any Siri tasks; instead your options boil down to accept, cancel, or do-over.

This highlights my first fundamental problem with Siri. It’s handy for basic tasks, like dialing a phone number, sending a simple text, or setting a timer, especially when I can’t safely look at the screen. However, as someone who works in an open area filled with co-workers, I’m not likely to use my phone at my desk. That leaves the car as the main place I use Siri, and it’s not ideal for that. Siri is very inconsistent with voice feedback, sometimes it reads text messages back without prompting, sometimes it expects me to look at a screen. Without turn-by-turn navigation in iOS, getting directions still requires me to look at the screen--it’s more dangerous than helpful.

However, my biggest problem with Siri is that Apple hasn’t made the service accessible so that third-party apps can hook into the service. That means I can’t use Siri to check Twitter messages, fire up my turn-by-turn navigation app, or find movie showtimes. There’s no fundamental reason this couldn’t happen--Siri is already using Yelp for local recommendations and Wolfram Alpha for specific types of queries. For me, the lack of third-party access earns Siri its “beta” tag, and renders it a nifty novelty, but nothing more, at least for now.

A Better Point-and-Shoot

The other immediately noticeable improvement in the iPhone 4S is its rear camera. The bump in the camera sensor from 5MP to 8MP brings not only larger photos, but clearer ones as well. That’s actually due more in part to the new five element lens in the 4S. We noticed improvements in both day and night shots; photos shot with natural light look less overexposed and photos taken in dark settings like bars or at concerts are less grainy than ones taken with the iPhone 4. The improvements are clearest in portraits and up-close macro photos--skin tones are more fleshed-out and the bokeh effect is gorgeous. And while some other smartphones (like the Nokia N9 and Samsung Galaxy S II) take better photos than the iPhone 4S in certain conditions, the camera here is much more than just “good enough” (in fact, all of the photos used in this review were taken with an iPhone 4S).

Additionally, the time it takes from tapping the camera app to actually being able to snap a photo has been greatly reduced. Apple wasn’t kidding when it boasted a shutter speed boost in the 4S. Whether that’s due to the extra processor horsepower in the A5 or the new camera sensor is irrelevant; I found myself missing fewer opportunities to take spur-of-the-moment [puppy] photos in everyday use. The case for smartphones replacing traditional point-and-shoots for everyday photos is stronger than ever--it actually takes less time to double-tap the home button, launch the camera app and be ready to take a photo on the iPhone 4S than to turn on a Canon point-and-shoot.

Improvements in photo quality transfer over to the video side as well. The iPhone 4S now captures 1080p video, with automatic image stabilization. While videos look really good, I’m a bit disappointed that there is no built-in ability to adjust video capture settings with the default camera app. 1080p video consumes a lot more space than 720p ones--a five minute video takes up almost a gigabyte of space. You can bypass these restrictions with third-party apps, of course, but it would be nice with Apple built those options in, even as “advanced” features hidden in Settings.


Does Size Matter?

Like the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4S features a 3.5-inch, 640x960 pixel screen. The display is a little warmer and brighter than the iPhone 4’s screen, but you won’t notice that unless you compare them side-by-side, and even then, it’s a little tough to see. No, my only question about the iPhone 4S’s screen is “Is it big enough?”

Over the last year, Android vendors have begun an insane screen size arms race, culminating in the imminent arrival of Google’s own Galaxy Nexus, which sports a crazy 4.65-inch screen. Admittedly, the phones with larger screens are significantly thinner than the iPhone 4 and 4S, so the larger-screened phones don’t really have a bigger impact in your pocket.


I’ve seen several apologetic stories over the last few weeks rationalizing Apple’s 3.5-inch screen size, but I think the real answer is simpler than thumb-size. Because iOS requires that app developers design their apps for specific resolution, Apple isn’t likely to add another intermediate screen resolution for developers to support, at least until the 3GS’s 320x480 resolution is retired in a few years. So, all a larger iPhone screen would do is decrease pixel density and reduce image quality. It wouldn’t actually impact the number of lines of text you can fit on a screen, the number of emails you can see at once, or the amount of data an app can pack on the screen. In fact, the only core applications that would benefit from a larger screen are--you guessed it, web browsing and games.

So that’s why I think the iPhone 4S retains its 3.5 inch screen, while Android phones grow ever larger. While I wouldn’t object to a larger iPhone screen, I don’t want a bigger screen unless Apple increases the resolution at the same time. The iOS browser works well with the small screen, mainly because you can double-tap to make a column of text full screen. Still, more screen space could have a huge impact on both web browsing and game play. As it is today, I prefer both on the iPad.


I Can Make Phone Calls!

Apple made significant updates to the iPhone 4’s antenna design for the 4S, adding a second antenna and moving the “deathgrip” spot from the bottom of the phone to the top. There are many variables dealing with cellular service outside our control, which makes it difficult to say with certainty, but in our side-by-side testing, the iPhone 4S seems to be a much more reliable phone than the original GSM version of the iPhone 4.

I tested the iPhone 4S on AT&T to the iPhone 4 on AT&T in several different scenarios at various times since the phone’s launch. My three scenarios are:

•     Downtown San Francisco in a high-signal, densely-populated area
•     At my home, which is plagued with spotty coverage, especially indoors
•     While driving my 26-mile daily commute

Additionally, I used the iPhone 4S as my primary phone. While my results were consistent with my testing experience, it’s important to note that the sample size is small enough that it should be considered anecdotal. Extended coverage testing is outside the scope of Tested.


Whether testing indoors in a low-signal area or on our commute home through San Francisco, I experienced fewer dropped calls on the iPhone 4S than on the iPhone 4. In six side-by-side testing sessions, the iPhone 4 dropped a total of six calls, while the iPhone 4S dropped none. In a month of daily use, I experienced two dropped calls while using the iPhone 4S--once while driving through a tunnel and the other while parked at a red light. The iPhone 4 repeatably drops calls at two points on my normal commute route, while the iPhone 4S does not. In the AT&T dead spot that is my house, I can walk through the house while on the phone with the 4S, which inevitably results in dropped calls on the iPhone 4.This aligns with our experiences using other phones on AT&T, which experienced a fraction of the connection problems that the iPhone 4 did. Hopefully the iPhone 4S means that the days of poor antenna design are now behind Apple and its phones.


The Verdict

The iPhone 4S, unlike its predecessor, is almost entirely controversy-free. Yes, there was a gnarly iOS 5 bug that drained some users’ batteries, but it affected all iOS devices and Apple has fixed the problem for most users. As it is today, the iPhone 4S is the best smartphone you can buy, period. The camera is impressive, the phone is speedy to the point that you’ll never notice how fast it is, the battery lasts all day, the screen looks fantastic, and the antenna problems seem to be fixed.


Everything else I praised in last year’s iPhone 4 review remains true. The app ecosystem for iOS remains the gold standard for both quality and quantity, and the overall user experience for iOS is unparalleled. With the additions that came with iOS 5--a modern notification system, PC-free setup, minimal reliance on iTunes, iCloud support, and more--there’s absolutely no reason to apologize for owning an iPhone. Yes, Siri is a gimmick. But even in beta form, it’s worth noting that I’ve actually used Siri more in a month than I’ve used the voice recognition software on every other device I’ve tested.

Physical Comparison
	Apple iPhone 4	Apple iPhone 4S	HTC Sensation	Samsung Galaxy Nexus	Samsung Galaxy S 2
Height	115.2 mm (4.5")	115.2 mm (4.5")	126.3 mm (4.97")	135.5 mm	125.3 mm (4.93")
Width	58.6 mm (2.31")	58.6 mm (2.31")	65.5 mm (2.58")	67.9 mm	66.1 mm (2.60")
Depth	9.3 mm ( 0.37")	9.3 mm ( 0.37")	11.6 mm (0.46")	8.94 mm	8.49 mm (0.33")
Weight	137 g (4.8 oz)	140 g (4.9 oz)	148 g (5.22 oz)	135 g	115 g (4.06 oz)
CPU	Apple A4 @ ~800MHz Cortex A8	Apple A5 @ ~800MHz Dual Core Cortex A9	1.2 GHz Dual Core Snapdragon MSM8260	1.2 GHz TI OMAP 4460 Dual Core Cortex A9	1.2 GHz Exynos 4210 Dual Core Cortex A9
GPU	PowerVR SGX 535	PowerVR SGX 543MP2	Adreno 220	PowerVR SGX 540	ARM Mali-400
RAM	512MB LPDDR1-400	512MB LPDDR2-800	768 MB LPDDR2	1GB LPDDR2	1 GB LPDDR2
NAND	16GB or 32GB integrated	16GB, 32GB or 64GB integrated	4 GB NAND with 8 GB microSD Class 4 preinstalled	16GB or 32GB NAND integrated	16 GB NAND with up to 32 GB microSD
Camera	5MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera	8MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera	8 MP AF/Dual LED flash, VGA front facing	5 MP AF with LED flash, 1.3MP front facing	8 MP AF/LED flash, 2 MP front facing
Screen	3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD	3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD	4.3" 960 x 540 S-LCD	4.65" 1280 x 720 Super AMOLED	4.27" 800 x 480 SAMOLED+
Battery	Integrated 5.254Whr	Integrated 5.291Whr	Removable 5.62 Whr	Removable 6.475 Whr	Removable 6.11 Whr

 

Smartphone Comparision.

One Image is equal to thousand words so from the the about image you will get the full info about the Smart phone and their difference.


Tell us which one is good to buy and why with the below comment option.