Status Update
Comments
st...@gmail.com <st...@gmail.com> #2
This is a particularly hard device to come by - do you happen to have access to the device? If so could you provide us with the output of: adb shell dumpsys media.camera > info.txt
Thanks!
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #3
Stacktrace:
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:355)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions(Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions(CameraX.java:943)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle(CameraX.java:293)
at androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle(ProcessCameraProvider.java:227)
Below are some findings based on our debugging
When Dex is connected
previewConfig.getMaxResolution() is returning "731x411" as maxSize.
Inside Preview.Builder.build() -> Default_MAX_resolution is set to "CameraX.getSurfaceManager().getPreviewSize()" which is 731x411
this is being picked as maxSize.
While rendering maxSize is 731x411 and minSize is 640x480 and below are available outputSizes
0 = {Size@11860} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11861} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11862} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11863} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11864} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11865} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11866} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11867} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11868} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11869} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11870} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11871} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11872} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11873} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11874} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11875} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11876} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11877} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11878} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11879} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11880} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11881} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11882} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11883} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11884} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11885} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11886} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11887} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11888} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11889} "176x144"
and couldn't find any size in this range.
When Dex not connected
minsize = 640x480
maxsize = 1920x1080
0 = {Size@11836} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11837} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11838} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11839} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11840} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11841} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11842} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11843} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11844} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11845} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11846} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11847} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11848} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11849} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11850} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11851} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11852} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11853} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11854} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11855} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11856} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11857} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11858} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11859} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11860} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11861} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11862} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11863} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11864} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11865} "176x144"
and we have 12 available sizes in this range
Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:: getPreviewSize()
mCameraSupportedSurfaceCombinationMap.get(cameraId).getSurfaceDefinition().getPreviewSize() = "1920x1080"
cameraId=0
o....@afse.eu <o....@afse.eu> #4
The issue root cause is that CameraX will default filter out sizes smaller than 640x480. For Preview, the max size will be limited to under display size. I checked the HW spec info for the issue related devices. Display size of FUJITSU F-04J/F-05J is 360x640. That will result int that no size exists in the conditions that is larger or equal to 640x480 and smaller or equal to 360x640.
A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
For device FUJITSU arrowsM04, I checked its HW spec info and its display size I found is 1280x720. It seems that the problem should not exist in the device.
Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device? What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
sa...@gmail.com <sa...@gmail.com> #5
> A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
OK. I will try it.
> Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device?
We receive the crash report (Crashlytics) that this crash has occurred on arrowsM04.
We don't have this device so we can't confirm that the problem really exist on arrowsM04.
> What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
We can't investigate it for the same reason.
Thank you.
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #6
This issue happened on devices that the display size is smaller than 640x480. In original auto-resolution mechanism, supported sizes smaller than 640x480 will be default filter out.
The auto-resolution mechanism encodes the guaranteed configurations tables in CameraDevice#createCaptureSession(SessionConfiguration). It defines that the PREVIEW size is the small one of the device display size and 1080p. The PREVIEW size will be the maximal size limitation for Preview use case. The reason it limits the size to display size and 1080p is the stream output in display size or 1080p has been able to provide good enough preview quality. Therefore, auto-resolution mechanism will limit the selected size to be smaller than the small one of the device display size and 1080p.
With above two conditions, in this issue, all sizes smaller than 640x480 have been filter out, therefore, there is no size smaller than the display size 320x240 can be selected to use. And cause the exception.
Solution:
When the display size is smaller than 640x480, auto-resolution mechanism won't filter out those small sizes smaller than 640x480. This makes those small size be left and can be selected for the Preview use case on small display devices.
The solution has been merged and will be included in next CameraX release.
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #7
Hello.
This crash still occurs.
- CAMERAX VERSION: 1.0.0-beta4
- ANDROID OS BUILD NUMBER: Android 7.1.1
- DEVICE NAME: FUJITSU F-02H
We receive following crash report from FUJITSU F-02H. So far We have received this crash report only from F-02H.
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:349)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions (Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions (CameraX.java:949)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle (CameraX.java:351)
androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle (ProcessCameraProvider.java:230)
(our application's package name).CameraFragment.bindCameraUseCases (CameraFragment.java:174)
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #8
Could you help to provide the following information to clarify the issue?
1. Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
2. Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #9
- Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
Yes
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
Since we don't have this device, we'll try to collect this information in the next version of our app. The next version will be released later this month.
la...@google.com <la...@google.com> #10
Hello.
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
We have collected the output of the device where the crash occurs.
Device1
- Model : arrows Be F-05J
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Device2
- Model : Fujitsu arrows M04
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Additional Information
CameraX version : 1.0.0-beta04
We collect the supported output sizes by following code.
val errorString = buildString {
append("The supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE: ")
(requireContext().getSystemService(Context.CAMERA_SERVICE) as CameraManager).apply {
cameraIdList.forEachIndexed { index, cameraId ->
val msg = if (VERSION.SDK_INT >= VERSION_CODES.M) {
val configurationMap =
getCameraCharacteristics(cameraId).get(CameraCharacteristics.SCALER_STREAM_CONFIGURATION_MAP)
val sizes = configurationMap?.getOutputSizes(ImageFormat.PRIVATE)
"CameraId $index: ${sizes?.joinToString(" ,")}"
} else {
"CameraId $index: This device version is under M."
}
append(msg)
}
}
}
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #12
I tried to find the device specs and both 720x1280
size display. For the camera id 0 device, it is a different case that the display size is larger than 640x480
but the device only supports a 480x480
size. The case also caused the same IllegalArgumentException and was also fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Before 480x480
size would be filtered out and then caused the IllegalArgumentException. After it was merged, the 640x480
size threshold was removed and then the 480x480
size would be kept and selected to use.
It looks like 1.0.0-beta04
release had been used to collect the supported sizes information. But the issue should have been fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
CameraX's 1.0.0-beta04
version. Maybe you can also consider to upgrade to the latest 1.0.0-rc01
version for your application. Thanks.
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #13
Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
We collect informations only from the device on which IllegalArgumentException happened.
Our latest app uses CameraX version 1.0.0-beta10
and this issue still occurres.
However we don't receive crash report from Fujitsu arrows Be F-05J
or Fujitsu arrows M04
so far. (This doesn't mean this issue is fixed on these devices because our app is heavily rely on camera so these device's user wouldn't use our app anymore.)
Instead, we receive crash report from
- Model : Fujitsu F-03K
- Android Version : 7.1.2
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0 : 480x480
CameraId 1 : 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
ml...@google.com <ml...@google.com> #14
I missed some settings when I simulated the issue by robolectric test so that I was not able to reproduce it. Now, I can reproduce the issue if the device only supports one 480x480 resolution. I'm working on the solution and target to make it included in next release.
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #15
Branch: androidx-main
commit 69d15dff7bb857ee33a0f643ff42a0f8bc475ab2
Author: charcoalchen <charcoalchen@google.com>
Date: Fri Jan 08 18:30:03 2021
Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Do not filter out sizes smaller than 640x480 when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Relnote:"Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480."
Bug: 150506192
Test: SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest
Change-Id: I2a63ce8e2ad42a9cc060c8635ac3603bf440b1ec
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombination.java
M camera/camera-camera2/src/test/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest.java
ml...@google.com <ml...@google.com> #16
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #17
Can you try and repro on API 30, and attach a few success traces?
I'll put up a workaround, and pass to Rahul to file a platform bug.
It's super weird this only affects warm startup, and not hot/cold.
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #18
Passing over to Rahul.
I started a WIP CL for this, but found I wasn't able to repro the behavior in
Left some ideas for next investigation steps in that CL:
https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/frameworks/support/+/1991372
If am start -w
is still unreliable, we can consider something more complex to detect end of frame after startup, like polling dumpsys gfxinfo <pkg> report
:
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #20
I can't reproduce this on API 32 for iosched
.
StartupBenchmark_startup[mode=COLD]
timeToInitialDisplayMs min 285.0, median 288.6, max 296.9
Traces: Iteration 0 1 2
StartupBenchmark_startup[mode=WARM]
timeToInitialDisplayMs min 84.2, median 85.0, max 89.2
Traces: Iteration 0 1 2
StartupBenchmark_startup[mode=HOT]
timeToInitialDisplayMs min 44.7, median 53.1, max 70.0
Traces: Iteration 0 1 2
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #21
This is using 1.1.0-beta04
.
ml...@google.com <ml...@google.com> #22
Hm, so I tested the 1.1.0-beta04
on user
builds on:
- SM-F711B (API 30)
- Pixel3 (API 31)
- Pixel6 (API 32)
It always fails for WARM
on Pixel3 (API 31).
If I uninstall the target app from the devices (and let the tests install it), it even fails on the Pixel6 (API 32) for HOT
.
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #23
mlykotom@ can you try reproducing this with this fix ? I can help you create a local maven artifact if that helps.
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #24
Branch: androidx-main
commit c561b23db0af7e40bd7d3c023059c8e8615c4f27
Author: Rahul Ravikumar <rahulrav@google.com>
Date: Mon Mar 07 16:38:29 2022
`am start -W` does not wait for the process to be up sometimes.
* This in turn causes failures due to missing metrics in the trace.
* To work around this we check for `Shell.isPackageAlive(packageName)`.
* Wait for upto an additional second for the process to be up.
Test: Ran `TrivialStartupBenchmark`s.
Fixes:
Change-Id: Id97312c8471a4707183ee39bfbe06e103487cf46
M benchmark/benchmark-macro/src/main/java/androidx/benchmark/macro/MacrobenchmarkScope.kt
M benchmark/benchmark-common/src/androidTest/java/androidx/benchmark/ShellTest.kt
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #25
Can you try using ab/8275593 once its available (on androidx.dev) to see if you can still reproduce this issue ?
ml...@google.com <ml...@google.com> #26
The Pixel6 looks like fixed, but Pixel 3 Android 12 with StartupMode.WARM
still fails, but I found out it always happens for the last iteration.
E.g. if I specify iterations=7
, it will fail when running the 8th time (because one is for warmup).
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #27
mlykotom@ can you add a device.waitForIdle()
in the measure block and see if that helps ?
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #28
The CL as written doesn't do anything for warm startups, since the process is already alive.
Given how flaky this wait has been, I'm just had the thought we can rewrite this await behavior using gfxinfo to see if a frame has been produced. Will need to handle named subprocesses correctly though.
Rahul, can you file a big to the platform with the repro from your CL? am start -w should definitely wait for the process to come alive (and really, for the first frame too).
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #29
Filed a platform bug at
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #30
The remaining problem with startups not being detected should be solved by
If anyone hitting this problem still sees it in beta05 (with the workaround in 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
with build 8353149 or later (once a snapshot build catches up).
cc...@google.com <cc...@google.com> #31
Last patch fixes startup benchmark, but has caused failures in the multiprocess benchmark, as well as all scrolling benchmarks since the launch pattern isn't consistent with startup mode. Working on these.
Description
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Pixel XL Android 10
Running macrobenchmark for my app with StartupMode.COLD and
pressHome()
startActivityAndWait() with an additional Thread.sleep(500) as suggested in
The same completes successfully in Nokia x20 Android 12
I get the following:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unable to read any metrics during benchmark (metric list: [androidx.benchmark.macro.StartupTimingMetric@f783ee0]).
Check that you're performing the operations to be measured. For example, if
using StartupTimingMetric, are you starting an activity for the specified package
in the measure block?
at androidx.benchmark.macro.MacrobenchmarkKt.macrobenchmark(Macrobenchmark.kt:236)
at androidx.benchmark.macro.MacrobenchmarkKt.macrobenchmarkWithStartupMode(Macrobenchmark.kt:300)
at androidx.benchmark.macro.junit4.MacrobenchmarkRule.measureRepeated(MacrobenchmarkRule.kt:102)
at androidx.benchmark.macro.junit4.MacrobenchmarkRule.measureRepeated$default(MacrobenchmarkRule.kt:92)
at com.example.benchmark.ExampleStartupBenchmark.startup(ExampleStartupBenchmark.kt:46)
at com.example.benchmark.ExampleStartupBenchmark.startupNoCompilation(ExampleStartupBenchmark.kt:33)