*****
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 <
[log in to unmask]> 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
>