Abstract

This erratum reports a correction to the Figs. 8 and 9 of J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 36, 3030 (2019) [CrossRef]  . Information regarding the camera used to register a mode profile is also clarified.

© 2020 Optical Society of America

 figure: Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Measured spectrograms of the laser pulse (a) directly at laser output and after passing (b) 1 m, (c) 2 m, and (d) 3 m of the inhibited- coupling fiber.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

 figure: Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Registered spectrograms after transmitting the femtosecond pulse over 1 m of SMF-28 fiber with (a) 2 mW and (b) 120 mW of average power.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

The wavelength axes of each measured group delay plot in Figs. 8 and 9 in Ref. [1] contain incorrect values. This error was introduced during data plotting and not during frequency-resolved optical gating (FROG) measurements. It was caused by incorrect use of a plotting function, which took extreme wavelengths of the measurement range and interpolated the intensity values over an equal step-size wavelength grid. Wavelength scale in the raw measurement data was not equally spaced. Since the same plotting function was used to prepare both the measured and retrieved group delay trace plots, all of them were affected, despite the fact that correct (physically measured) data had been used in all FROG retrievals. The piezo translation stage, used in the experimental setup to control delay in the FROG scanning beam path, was operated with constant step size in each measurement. For this reason, the timescales shown in Figs. 8 and 9 in the original work [1] were correctly plotted and no correction was necessary to any of the retrieved pulse durations and the related discussion. Here, we provide corrected wavelength scales in Figs. 8 and 9, which were taken from the raw measurement data.

In addition to that, the caption in Fig. 1 conveyed that the camera that was used had a CCD matrix, while in the main text a CMOS camera was mentioned. Here we resolve this ambiguity by confirming that the camera was of a CCD type and information about CMOS was incorrect.

REFERENCE

1. D. Dobrakowski, A. Rampur, G. Stępniewski, D. Pysz, L. Zhao, Y. Stepanenko, R. Buczyński, and M. Klimczak, “Femtosecond pulse delivery around 1560 nm in large-core inhibited-coupling fibers,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 36, 3030–3038 (2019). [CrossRef]  

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. D. Dobrakowski, A. Rampur, G. Stępniewski, D. Pysz, L. Zhao, Y. Stepanenko, R. Buczyński, and M. Klimczak, “Femtosecond pulse delivery around 1560 nm in large-core inhibited-coupling fibers,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 36, 3030–3038 (2019).
    [Crossref]

2019 (1)

Buczynski, R.

Dobrakowski, D.

Klimczak, M.

Pysz, D.

Rampur, A.

Stepanenko, Y.

Stepniewski, G.

Zhao, L.

Cited By

OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (2)

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Measured spectrograms of the laser pulse (a) directly at laser output and after passing (b) 1 m, (c) 2 m, and (d) 3 m of the inhibited- coupling fiber.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. Registered spectrograms after transmitting the femtosecond pulse over 1 m of SMF-28 fiber with (a) 2 mW and (b) 120 mW of average power.

Metrics