http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Pulse-compression-and-in-vivo-imaging-tp6557894p6561726.html
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> If scattering is the issue then adaptive optics will be more advantageous
> than dispersion control. The adaptive optics will help compensate somewhat
> for the scattering and aberrations induced by the tissue. To get good 2P
> imaging you need a good focal spot more-so than you need a perfectly
> transform limited pulse. Adaptive optics will help keep your focus
> together
> as you try to image deeply. That said, dispersion compensation will help
> somewhat so if you already have the necessary equipment then try it.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Stéphane Pagès <
>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> >
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> > *****
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> > I am planning to image fluorescent neurons in vivo approximately 200 um
> > below the pia with a standard Ti:Sa laser.
> > I wonder if there is a clear advantage to use pulse compression to
> > compensate for dispersion of pulses due to tissue.
> > I understand theoretical arguments in favor of pulse compression.
> > However from an experimental point of view, are there some people here in
> > the list that have experienced some gain (in lowering the intensity of
> the
> > exciting beam for example).
> > Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks a lot
> > Stephane
> >
>