Hi Gunnar, thanks for the analysis, and thanks for confirming that mupdf-tools was indeed missing.
Anyway, I think there is a slight misunderstanding about which external tool Impressive requires: For *analysis* (i.e. checking how many pages there are, extracting hyperlinks etc.), Impressive needs "mutool" from mupdf-tools or "pdftk" from pdftk-java(*). For *rendering* (i.e. converting PDF pages to bitmaps), Impressive needs "mutool" from mupdf-tools or "pdftoppm" from poppler-utils. So, pdftk is in no way involved in how the slides look on screen, while mutool serves double duty for analysis and rendering.
I can confirm impressive works with my presentation (although the rendering looks a bit less polished) after installing mupdf-tools.
That's interesting. Can you upload a pair of example screenshots and/or an affected document somewhere? In my testing, I've always found MuPDF's results to be equal (and sometimes even superior) to Poppler's. You are, in fact, the first user who complains about the rendering quality, and I'd like to understand what's going on.
I think the result for having both installed should be to default for the best renderer.
That's exactly what it does :) Impressive picks MuPDF over Poppler because of two reasons: (a) it's faster, and (b) it doesn't require temporary files. That being said, you don't need to uninstall anything to force Impressive to use a specific renderer, as there's a command-line option to override the renderer: "-P mutool" uses MuPDF, "-P pdftoppm" uses Poppler, "-P gs" uses GhostScript. Best regards, Martin Fiedler (*) As said a few mails back, there is one -- optional -- feature that still requires pdftk(-java), and that's extraction of the page titles. If you don't need that, but have mupdf-tools, you can get rid of pdftk-java. This restriction will possibly vanish sonn, because literally an hour *after* I released 0.13.1, a user informed me that mutool can indeed also extract page titles if you ask nicely ...
