 be seen as asymmetric residuals, so that part of the galaxy has positive residual values and the other part has negative values. In such cases we fixed all the other fit parameters except for the galaxy center, and let GALFIT to refit the center of the Sérsic profile. After this the center was fixed again and the other Sérsic parameters were fit again. This procedure reduced the fit residuals significantly.

Some of the galaxies show also a peaked nucleus (see the 4th row in Fig. \[fit\_profiles\]) which is clearly a separate component in the galaxy center. In such cases, we manually place an additional *PSF*-component to fit the nucleus. The [*PSF*]{}-component is added to improve the overall fit of the galaxy rather than aiming for the detailed analysis of the nuclear star clusters. We fit the [*PSF*]{}-component using a fixed center position, and leave the total magnitude of the nucleus as a free parameter to fit.

Using the steps described before, our fits converged for all the galaxies in our sample. In the end, we examined the fits for systematics in the residuals, and corrected the ones where the center of the galaxy was wrong or the nucleus was missed. To ensure that the sky components are fit correctly, the radial surface brightness profiles and the cumulative radial profiles were inspected. Specifically we checked that GALFIT does not mix the sky component with the Sérsic profile, which would give unrealistically large effective radii and total magnitudes to the galaxies. The opposite (absorbing galaxy light to sky) is unlikely, since all our images had large areas of background sky not covered by the galaxy.

Comparison of the 1D and 2D methods
-----------------------------------

Fig. \[fig:fitcomparison\] shows a comparison of the Sérsic $n$-values, axis ratios ($b/a$), total r’-band magnitudes (m$_{r'}$), and effective radii (R$_{e}$) obtained with the two methods. Both methods give similar distributions for the Sérsic $n$ values, although the scatter is significant with RMS = 0.47. The effective radii and magnitudes are well in agreement in the two measurements (the lower panels of \[fig:fitcomparison\]), except for the four outliers. The outliers are explained due to the different fitting of their background levels in the 1D and 2D methods. Only for the axis ratios $b/a$ a systematic shift appears between the two methods
be seen as asymmetric residuals, so that part of the galax have positive residual values and the early part have negative value. In such case we fixed all the early fit argument except for the galaxy plaza, and let GALFIT to refit the center of the Sérsic visibility. After this the center was fixed again and the early Sérsic parameters were fit again. This operation reduce the fit residuals significantly. 

 Some of the galaxy show also a peaked core (see the 4th row in Fig. \[fit\_profiles\ ]) which is clearly a separate part in the galaxy center. In such cases, we manually place an additional * PSF*-component to fit the core. The [ * PSF*]{}-component is added to improve the overall fit of the galaxy rather than aiming for the detailed analysis of the nuclear star clusters. We fit the [ * PSF*]{}-component use a fixed center stead, and leave the total magnitude of the nucleus as a spare parameter to fit. 

 Using the steps trace before, our fits converged for all the galaxies in our sample. In the end, we examined the paroxysm for systematics in the residuals, and corrected the ones where the center of the galax was wrong or the lens nucleus was miss. To ensure that the sky components are fit correctly, the radial surface luminosity profiles and the cumulative radial profiles were inspected. Specifically we checked that GALFIT does not mix the sky component with the Sérsic profile, which would give unrealistically big effective radii and full magnitudes to the galaxies. The diametric (absorbing galaxy light to sky) is unlikely, since all our effigy had big areas of background sky not cover by the galaxy. 

 Comparison of the 1D and 2D method acting 
 ----------------------------------- 

 Fig. \[fig: fitcomparison\ ] shows a comparison of the Sérsic $ n$-values, axis ratios ($ b / a$), total r’-band magnitudes (m$_{r'}$), and effective radii (R$_{e}$) obtained with the two methods. Both methods yield similar distributions for the Sérsic $ n$ value, although the scatter is significant with RMS = 0.47. The effective radii and magnitudes are well in agreement in the two measurements (the lower panels of \[fig: fitcomparison\ ]), except for the four outlier. The outliers are explained due to the different fitting of their background levels in the 1D and 2D method. merely for the bloc proportion $ b / a$ a systematic shift appears between the two methods
 be seen as asymmetric resiauals, so that pcet of vhe galzxy has oositive residual values and tye otyer part has negative xalues. In such cawes xe fixed all the other flc parzletexs except for thg galaxy cender, and let GANFKT to refit the center of the Sérsic pwofile. Sfher this the cgnter ras rpxtd again and the other Sérsic parajeters xere fit again. Yhis procedure reduced the fit residuals signififantly.

Some if trw galaxies sfow also a peaked nuclgus (see the 4th row in Fig. \[fit\_prowiles\]) which is xlwarpi a separate compjnent in the galaxy wenter. On such cases, ee kanyally place an additimnal *PSF*-component jo fit the nbcleus. The [*PSF*]{}-componebt is agded to knpruve tie kveralp fmt of the gzlaxy rathee than aiming for tne eetailed analgsis os ehe nuclear star clusters. We fit the [*PSX*]{}-cojponent using a fixed cwnter position, and lewve the tjtal magnitude of the nucleus as a free parameter to fmt.

Jsiun gye steps described before, our fits converged fow akl the galaxies ln our sample. In tne emq, we examined the fnfs for systematics ij the rgsiduaos, and cowrecyed the ones where the centwr of the gajqxy was wrong or tke nucleus wcs misxed. Tp ensure that the sky cumpohents are flt correcfuy, the radial suffabe bsightness profiles and the cumulatite rabial prowilex were inspected. Speclxically we checked that GDLFIT does not mix the sky component with the Sérsic progine, fhich wobld giye unrealisticajly large effeetive rabii ana total mafnitudev to the gajaxies. The op[lsite (absorbmng galaxr litht ro sky) kr unlikely, sinve all oug nmages hae large areas of beckgtohnd sky not covzxee by the galaxy.

Vomoarysln os the 1D and 2D metfodr
-----------------------------------

Gig. \[fkg:fitcomparlsov\] shpws a comparison of dhe Aérsic $n$-values, axis rwtios ($b/a$), total r’-fand magnitudrs (m$_{r'}$), and effectivt radim (R$_{e}$) outainec wyth the two methods. Both methoss give slmijar distribueionw for the Sérxic $n$ values, although the scatter is sijnificant with RMS = 0.47. Thw effective radii aud magnitudes are rell in acreement in the two neasurements (the kower panels of \[fig:fifcompasison\]), except for the four outliers. The outliers are explained due to the diffeeent fmteing of thejr bsckgrmuud kevels in vhx 1D and 2D methods. Only for the axis ratios $b/a$ a rystemathc shift appears between the teo methods
be seen as asymmetric residuals, so that the has positive values and the In cases we fixed the other fit except for the galaxy center, and GALFIT to refit the center of the Sérsic profile. After this the center fixed again and the other Sérsic parameters were fit again. This procedure reduced fit significantly. of galaxies show also a peaked nucleus (see the 4th row in Fig. \[fit\_profiles\]) which is clearly separate component in the galaxy center. In such we manually place an *PSF*-component to fit the nucleus. [*PSF*]{}-component added to the fit the galaxy rather aiming for the detailed analysis of the nuclear star clusters. We fit the [*PSF*]{}-component using a fixed position, and total magnitude the as free parameter to the steps described before, our fits the galaxies in our sample. In the end, examined the for systematics in the residuals, and the ones where the center of the galaxy wrong or the nucleus was missed. To ensure that the sky components are fit correctly, surface brightness profiles and cumulative radial profiles inspected. we that does not the sky component with the Sérsic profile, which would give unrealistically effective radii and total magnitudes to the galaxies. The opposite light sky) is unlikely, all our images had areas background sky not covered galaxy. of 2D ----------------------------------- \[fig:fitcomparison\] shows a comparison the Sérsic $n$-values, axis ratios total r’-band magnitudes (m$_{r'}$), with the two methods. Both methods give similar for the Sérsic $n$ values, although the is significant with RMS = 0.47. The effective radii and magnitudes are in agreement two measurements (the lower panels of \[fig:fitcomparison\]), except the four outliers. The are explained due to the different fitting of their levels the 1D 2D methods. Only the axis ratios a systematic shift the two
 be seen as asymmetric residuaLs, so that paRt of tHe gAlaXy Has pOsitIve residual valUEs anD the other part has negatiVe valUeS. in suCH cAses wE fixed aLL tHE OthEr FiT paRaMEtErs exCepT for the Galaxy centEr, aNd Let GALFIT to rEFiT the center Of tHe Sérsic profIle. after tHiS thE CenteR waS fixeD again ANd the oTher SérsiC pARameteRS were fiT AGaIn. ThIs procedure reduceD ThE Fit residuals siGnificAnTLy.

sOMe oF thE galaxies sHoW also A Peaked nUClEUS (See THe 4th row in Fig. \[fIt\_profiles\]) wHIch Is cleaRlY a sEParate CompoNeNT in The galaxy ceNter. in such casEs, we maNUally plACe an addItionaL *PSf*-coMponENt To Fit ThE NucLEuS. ThE [*pSF*]{}-ComponenT iS aDded tO impROVE The oVerAll fIt of tHe galaxy ratheR thAn aiMIng For thE detaIled AnAlysiS of the NucleAr Star clusters. We fIt thE [*PSF*]{}-compoNenT uSinG a Fixed CEnter pOsiTioN, and leaVe the toTAl mAgNITUdE of the nucleus as a frEe PARaMeter to fIt.

UsinG ThE sTEps descrIbEd bEforE, OUr fitS conVErGed for alL the gaLAxIeS in our sAmPle. In tHe End, We eXaminED the Fits foR systemaTics iN The residuals, anD Corrected the oNEs WHErE The cEntEr of the galaXy waS WronG or tHE nUclEUs was MisseD. TO EnSUre that the sky componEnTs are fIt corRectly, the radiAl surface bRIGHtness prOfilES aND the cumulative RadiaL profiles wERe inspecTed. SpEcificalLy we checkED That GALFiT dOes Not Mix THE sKy component wiTH The SÉrSic profIle, Which woUld GivE unReaLiStically lArge effeCtIvE rAdIi aNd totAL magnituDeS to ThE gaLaxieS. the oppOsite (AbsoRbInG GalAxy lighT To SKY) is uNlIkEly, sIncE aLl our ImagES haD large aReas of bacKgrOUnd sKy NoT covereD by the galaxy.

COmParison of tHe 1d anD 2D methODS
-----------------------------------

Fig. \[fig:fItcomparison\] shows a compaRIson of tHe SÉrsic $N$-valUes, axis raTioS ($b/a$), totAl r’-BAnd magNitudeS (m$_{r'}$), anD eFfeCTIve raDII (R$_{E}$) obTaIned with thE TWo mEthodS. BOth mEthods gIve similar distribuTIonS for the Sérsic $N$ vaLues, ALThOugH ThE ScaTtER is SIGnificant with RMs = 0.47. The effectIvE RaDii and magnITudEs Are well In agreeMent iN The two mEasuremenTs (the loweR pAnelS OF \[fiG:fitcomparIson\]), excePt for the fOUr outLIeRs. The OutLiers aRe ExpLaineD due to THe dIfferEnt fitTiNg of thEir baCkGround leVels in the 1D and 2D methods. OnLy for tHe axiS raTios $b/a$ a sySteMAtiC shift appEars Between the Two MetHods
 be seen as asymmetric res iduals, so  that  pa rtof  the  gal axy has positi v e re sidual values and theother  p a rt h a snegat ive val u es . Insu ch  ca se s  w e fix edall the  other fit  pa ra meters excep t  f or the gal axy  center, and  le t GALF IT  to refit  th e cen ter of the Sé rsic prof il e . Afte r  this t h e  c ente r was fixed again an d  the other Sér sic pa ra m et e r s w ere  fit again .Thisp rocedur e  r e d u ced the fit resid uals signif i can tly.
So meo f thegalax ie s  sh ow also a p eake d nucleus  (seet he 4thr ow in F ig. \[ fit \_p rofi l es \] ) w hi c h i s  c lea r lya separa te  c ompon enti n t he g ala xy c enter . In such cas es,  wem anu allyplace  anad ditio nal *P SF*-c om ponent to fit t he n ucleus. T he[* PSF *] {}-co m ponent  is  ad ded toimprove the  o v e r al l fit of the galax yr a th er thanaiming fo rt he detai le d a naly s i s ofthen uc lear sta r clus t er s.  We fit  t he [*P SF *]{ }-c ompon e nt u sing a  fixed c enter position, andl eave the tota l  m a g ni t udeofthe nucleus  asa  fre e pa r am ete r  to f it.
Us i ng the steps described  b efore,  ourfits converge d for allt h e  galaxie s in ou r  sample. In th e end , we exami n ed the f its f or syste matics in t he resid ual s,and  co r r ec ted the onesw h ereth e cente r o f the g ala xywas  wr on g or thenucleuswa smi ss ed.  To e n sure tha tthe  s kycompo n ents a re fi t co rr ec t ly,  the ra d ia l surf ac ebrig htn es s pro file s  an d the c umulative  ra d ialpr of iles we re inspected.  S pecificall ywechecke d that GAL FIT does not mix the sk y  compon ent  with  the  Sérsic p rof ile, w hic h  would  giveunrea li sti c a lly l a r ge  ef fe ctive radi i and  tota lmagn itudesto the galaxies. T h e o pposite (abso rbi ng g a l ax y l i gh t  to  s k y)i s  unlikely, sinc e all ourim a ge s had larg e  ar ea s of ba ckgroun d sky not cov ered by t he galaxy .
Com p a ris on of the1D and 2 D methods ----- - -- ----- --- ------ -- --- ----- ---

F i g.\[fig :fitco mp arison \] sh ow s a comp arison of the Sérsic $n $-valu es, a xis  ratios ( $b/ a $),  total r’ -ban d magnitud es(m$ _{r'} $), and e ffec t iv e r a dii ( R$_{ e }$) obtai n ed  wi t h  t he two meth o d s . B oth m eth o ds giv e si milar distributio n s for the Sérs ic $ n $  va lue s , al th ough the scatt eris s ignifica nt  with RMS =  0.47. T he effec tive r adii a nd magn i t ud e s arewell  in  agreemen t i nt he twome as u rement s (t he  lower  panel s  of\ [ fig:fitcompariso n\]), e xcept for  thefo ur outl i ers.  The outli ers are exp lained  due  to t he diff er ent fi tti ng  of theirb ackground  leve ls in t he  1Dand  2D me thod s .  Only  for  t heaxis rati o s  $ b /a $a  sy stem aticsh iftappears b e tween th e t w o metho ds 
 be_seen as_asymmetric residuals, so that_part of_the_galaxy has_positive_residual values and_the other part_has negative values. In_such cases we_fixed_all the other fit parameters except for the galaxy center, and let GALFIT to_refit_the center_of_the_Sérsic profile. After this the_center was fixed again and_the other_Sérsic parameters were fit again. This procedure reduced_the_fit residuals significantly.

Some_of the galaxies show also a peaked nucleus (see_the 4th row in Fig. \[fit\_profiles\])_which is clearly_a_separate_component in the galaxy_center. In such cases, we manually_place an additional *PSF*-component to fit_the nucleus. The [*PSF*]{}-component is added to_improve the overall fit of the_galaxy rather than aiming for_the detailed_analysis of the nuclear star_clusters. We fit_the [*PSF*]{}-component_using a fixed_center position, and leave the total_magnitude of the_nucleus as a free parameter to_fit.

Using_the steps described_before,_our_fits converged_for all the_galaxies_in our_sample._In the end, we examined the_fits_for systematics in the residuals, and corrected_the ones where the_center_of the galaxy was_wrong or the nucleus was_missed. To ensure that the sky_components are_fit correctly,_the radial surface brightness profiles and the cumulative radial profiles were_inspected. Specifically we checked that GALFIT_does not mix the_sky component_with_the Sérsic profile,_which_would give_unrealistically large effective radii and total magnitudes_to the_galaxies. The opposite (absorbing galaxy light_to sky) is unlikely,_since_all our images had large areas_of background sky not covered by_the galaxy.

Comparison of the 1D_and_2D_methods
-----------------------------------

Fig. \[fig:fitcomparison\] shows a comparison_of the Sérsic $n$-values, axis ratios_($b/a$), total r’-band_magnitudes (m$_{r'}$), and effective radii (R$_{e}$) obtained_with_the two methods. Both methods give_similar_distributions for the Sérsic $n$ values,_although_the_scatter is significant with RMS_= 0.47. The effective radii and_magnitudes are well in agreement in the two measurements_(the lower panels_of \[fig:fitcomparison\]), except for the_four_outliers._The outliers are explained due to the different fitting of_their background_levels in the_1D and 2D methods. Only for the axis ratios $b/a$_a systematic shift appears between the two_methods