. (The VLT-SINFONI AO observations were taken with offsets to blank sky, but these were spaced too far apart in time for accurate removal of the overall background levels.) The problem is then to find the correct multiplicative scaling $k$ to match the background-corrected “inner” profile (from the high-resolution image) with the “outer” profile (from the low-resolution image, which is large enough for its own background to be properly estimated), while also determining the unknown background level $B_{i}$ in the high-resolution image, so that we can transform the observed inner profile $I_{i}$ to a corrected profile $I_{i}^{\prime}$: $$I_{i}^{\prime} \; = \; k (I_{i} - B_{i}).$$

Fortunately, these two issues can be dealt with in combination, by taking advantage of the fact that the same galaxy was observed in both images. The trick is to identify a radial overlap zone between the two profiles (outside the region where seeing distorts the low-resolution data) and iteratively fit for the values of $k$ and $B_{i}$ which minimize the difference $I_{i}^{\prime}(r) - I_{o}(r)$ for values of $r$ in the overlap zone (with $I_{o}$ being the outer profile). The two profiles are then merged at the best-matching radius in the overlap region. Although the profiles we analyze are usually major-axis cuts, in practice we determine $k$ and $B_{i}$ using profiles from ellipse fits with fixed position angle and ellipticity, to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. This approach is ideal when the high- and low-resolution images were taken with the same filter; in some cases, we are forced to match and combine profiles from images with dissimilar filters (e.g., F814W and $R$, or $K$ and $z$).

When decomposing our surface-brightness profiles – which are typically cuts along the major axis of the galaxy – we do not attempt to correct for PSF convolution, though we do exclude the inner 2–3 pixels of the profile from the fit. For several galaxies with *HST* images, we estimated the possible effects of neglecting PSF convolution by also extracting profiles from images which had been deconvolved using the Lucy-Richardson algorithm (via the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IRAF</span>
. (The VLT - SINFONI AO observations were taken with offsets to blank sky, but these were spaced excessively far aside in time for accurate removal of the overall background degree .) The trouble is then to find the correct multiplicative scaling $ k$ to equal the background - corrected “ inside ” visibility (from the high - resolution trope) with the “ outer ” profile (from the low - settlement image, which is large enough for its own background to be properly estimated), while besides determining the unknown background grade $ B_{i}$ in the high - resolution double, so that we can transform the ascertained inner visibility $ I_{i}$ to a corrected profile $ I_{i}^{\prime}$: $ $ I_{i}^{\prime } \; = \; k (I_{i } - B_{i}).$$ 

 Fortunately, these two issues can be dealt with in combination, by consume advantage of the fact that the same galaxy was observed in both images. The trick is to name a radial lap zone between the two profile (outside the region where seeing distorts the low - resolution data) and iteratively fit for the value of $ k$ and $ B_{i}$ which understate the difference $ I_{i}^{\prime}(r) - I_{o}(r)$ for values of $ r$ in the lap zone (with $ I_{o}$ being the out profile). The two profiles are then merged at the well - matching radius in the overlap region. Although the profile we analyze are usually major - axis cuts, in practice we decide $ k$ and $ B_{i}$ using profiles from ellipse fits with fixed stead angle and oblateness, to increase the signal - to - randomness proportion. This approach is ideal when the high- and low - resolution images were taken with the same filter; in some cases, we are forced to pit and combine profiles from images with dissimilar filter (e.g., F814W and $ R$, or $ K$ and $ z$). 

 When disintegrate our surface - brightness profile – which are typically cuts along the major bloc of the galaxy – we do not attempt to correct for PSF convolution, though we do eject the inner 2–3 pixels of the profile from the fit. For several galaxy with * HST * images, we calculate the possible effects of neglecting PSF convolution by also extract profiles from images which had been deconvolved use the Lucy - Richardson algorithm (via the < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">IRAF</span >
. (Thf VLT-SINFONI AO observatlons were taken cuth ofhsets tk blank rky, but these were spaced tol dar akcrt in time for accufate remonal of thw ovtrall background levels.) Tmz progpem ns then to find jhe correct kultiplicative szaping $k$ to match the background-corrested “inmeg” profile (from the righ-dvsilution image) with the “outer” lrofile (from the low-tesolution image, which is pargf enough for its oan backgroubd tj be properly estimated), while also setermining the unknown backgrojnd lzvel $B_{i}$ in jkw hlch-resolutioi imagv, so that we gsn tratsform yhe observed ikner 'rofule $I_{i}$ to a corrected profile $I_{i}^{\prime}$: $$I_{y}^{\prime} \; = \; k (I_{i} - B_{i}).$$

Fortunatelt, rhese two issjws zan bx dsalt wlth in combinztion, by tajing advantage of tne dact that the same dajaxy was observed in both images. The trpck js to identify a radial overlap zone between the two [rofiles (outside the region where seeing distorts the muw-rtsilutiub fata) and iteratively fit for the values of $k$ whd $B_{p}$ which minimize bhe difference $I_{i}^{\ptile}(t) - I_{o}(r)$ for valoes of $x$ ih the overlap zone (with $I_{j}$ beibg the ouuer ptofile). The two profiles are then merged qt the best-matchiny radius in che ovgrlap tegion. Although the proyiles se analyze wre usualmh major-axis cuts, in psactice we determine $k$ and $B_{i}$ using proyiles frum eklipse fits with fixed position angle anf ellnptichty, to incgease the signal-to-noise ratio. Tims approach ix hdedl when che hinh- and low-resolttion images wgre taken with the same rilter; mn some casef, we are forcaf to match aid combinq prifilws from kmages with dixsimilar ynlters (e.g., F814W and $R$, or $K$ and $z$).

Wfsn decomposing iur surface-brightnrss prjfplex – fhich are ty[icauly vuts xlong the mcjur acis of the galaxy – wa do not attempt to cotrcct for PWF convojution, though we do exclude the innec 2–3 pixxls of thg profile from the fit. For sevedal galaxles with *HST* imwges, we estimateb the possible effects of neglecting PSF convolution by alwo extracting profikts from imagex whish had bean deconvolved using the Lucy-Richardspn algorithm (via the <apan sdyle="flnt-variant:small-caps;">IRAF</span>
. (The VLT-SINFONI AO observations were taken to sky, but were spaced too accurate of the overall levels.) The problem then to find the correct multiplicative $k$ to match the background-corrected “inner” profile (from the high-resolution image) with the profile (from the low-resolution image, which is large enough for its own background be estimated), also the unknown background level $B_{i}$ in the high-resolution image, so that we can transform the observed profile $I_{i}$ to a corrected profile $I_{i}^{\prime}$: $$I_{i}^{\prime} = \; k (I_{i} B_{i}).$$ Fortunately, these two issues be with in by advantage the fact that same galaxy was observed in both images. The trick is to identify a radial overlap zone between two profiles region where distorts low-resolution and iteratively fit values of $k$ and $B_{i}$ which $I_{i}^{\prime}(r) - I_{o}(r)$ for values of $r$ in overlap zone $I_{o}$ being the outer profile). The profiles are then merged at the best-matching radius the overlap region. Although the profiles we analyze are usually major-axis cuts, in practice we and $B_{i}$ using profiles ellipse fits with position and to the signal-to-noise This approach is ideal when the high- and low-resolution images were with the same filter; in some cases, we are forced and profiles from images dissimilar filters (e.g., F814W $R$, $K$ and $z$). When surface-brightness – cuts the axis of the galaxy we do not attempt to for PSF convolution, though 2–3 pixels of the profile from the fit. several galaxies with *HST* images, we estimated possible effects of neglecting PSF convolution by also extracting profiles from images had been the Lucy-Richardson algorithm (via the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IRAF</span>
. (The VLT-SINFONI AO observatioNs were takeN with OffSetS tO blaNk skY, but these were sPAced Too far apart in time for acCuratE rEMovaL Of The ovErall baCKgROUnd LeVeLs.) THe PRoBlem iS thEn to finD the correcT muLtIplicative scALiNg $k$ to match The Background-coRreCted “inNeR” prOFile (fRom The hiGh-resoLUtion iMage) with tHe “OUter” prOFile (froM THe Low-rEsolution image, whiCH iS Large enough for Its own BaCKgROUnd To bE properly eStImateD), While alSO dETERmiNIng the unknown Background lEVel $b_{i}$ in thE hIgh-REsolutIon imAgE, So tHat we can traNsfoRm the obseRved inNEr profiLE $I_{i}$ to a cOrrectEd pRofIle $I_{I}^{\PrImE}$: $$I_{i}^{\PrIMe} \; = \; k (i_{I} - B_{I}).$$

FoRTunAtely, theSe TwO issuEs caN BE DEalt WitH in cOmbinAtion, by taking AdvAntaGE of The faCt thaT the SaMe galAxy was ObserVeD in both images. ThE triCk is to ideNtiFy A raDiAl oveRLap zonE beTweEn the twO profilES (ouTsIDE ThE region where seeing DiSTOrTs the low-ResoluTIoN dATa) and iteRaTivEly fIT For thE valUEs Of $k$ and $B_{i}$ Which mINiMiZe the diFfErence $i_{i}^{\PriMe}(r) - i_{o}(r)$ foR ValuEs of $r$ iN the overLap zoNE (with $I_{o}$ being thE Outer profile). THE tWO PrOFileS arE then merged At thE Best-MatcHInG raDIus in The ovErLAp REgion. Although the proFiLes we aNalyzE are usually maJor-axis cutS, IN Practice We deTErMIne $k$ and $B_{i}$ using ProfiLes from ellIPse fits wIth fiXed positIon angle aND EllipticIty, To iNcrEasE THe Signal-to-noise RATio. THiS approaCh iS ideal wHen The HigH- anD lOw-resolutIon imageS wErE tAkEn wIth thE Same filtEr; In sOmE caSes, we ARe forcEd to mAtch AnD cOMbiNe profiLEs FROm imAgEs With DisSiMilar FiltERs (e.G., F814W and $R$, Or $K$ and $z$).

WhEn dECompOsInG our surFace-brightnesS pRofiles – whiCh Are TypicaLLY cuts aloNg the major axis of the galaXY – we do noT atTempt To coRrect for PsF cOnvoluTioN, Though We do exClude ThE inNER 2–3 pixeLS Of The PrOfile from tHE Fit. for seVeRal gAlaxies With *HST* images, we estIMatEd the possible EffEcts OF NeGleCTiNG PSf cONvoLUTion by also extraCting profiLeS FrOm images whICh hAd Been decOnvolveD usinG The Lucy-richardsoN algorithM (vIa thE <SPan Style="font-vAriant:smAll-caps;">IRaf</span>
. (The VLT-SINFONI AO obse rvations w ere t ake n w it h of fset s to blank sky ,  but  these were spaced too  farap a rt i n  t ime f or accu r at e rem ov al  of  t h eovera llbackgro und levels .)Th e problem is th en to find  th e correct mu lti plicat iv e s c aling  $k $ tomatcht he bac kground-c or r ected“ inner”p r of ile(from the high-re s ol u tion image) wi th the  “ o ut e r ” p rof ile (fromth e low - resolut i on i m age ,  which is lar ge enough f o r i ts own  b ack g roundto be  p r ope rly estimat ed),  while al so det e rmining the unk nown b ack gro undl ev el  $B _{ i }$i nthe hig h-resolu ti on  imag e, s o t h at w e c an t ransf orm the obser ved  inn e r p rofil e $I_ {i}$  t o a c orrect ed pr of ile $I_{i}^{\pr ime} $: $$I_{i }^{ \p rim e}  \; = \; k ( I_{ i}- B_{i} ).$$

F o rtu na t e l y,  these two issuesca n be  dealt w ith in co mb i nation,by  ta king a dvant ageo fthe fact  thatt he  s ame gal ax y wasob ser ved  in b o th i mages.  The tri ck is to identify ar adial overlap zo n e  b e twee n t he two prof iles (out side th e r e gionwhere  s e ei n g distorts the low- re soluti on da ta) and itera tively fit f o r the va lues of $k$ and $B_{i} $ whi ch minimiz e  the dif feren ce $I_{i }^{\prime } ( r) - I_{ o}( r)$  fo r v a l ue s of $r$ in t h e  ove rl ap zone  (w ith $I_ {o} $ b ein g t he  outer pr ofile).Th etw opro files are then  m erg ed  at  theb est-ma tchin g ra di us inthe ove r la p regi on .Alth oug hthe p rofi l eswe anal yze are u sua l ly m aj or -axis c uts, in pract ic e we deter mi ne$k$ an d $B_{i}$using profiles from ell i pse fit s w ith f ixed  position  an gle an d e l liptic ity, t o inc re ase t he si g n al -to -n oise ratio . Thi s app ro achis idea l when the high- a n d l ow-resolution  im ages w er e t a ke n  wi th the s ame filter; insome cases ,w eare forced toma tch and  combin e pro f iles fr om images  with dis si mila r fil ters (e.g. , F814Wand $R$,o r $K$ an d $z$ ).
Whende com posin g ours urf ace-b rightn es s prof iles–which ar e typically cuts alongthe ma jor a xis  of the g ala x y –  we do no t at tempt to c orr ect  forPSF convo luti o n,  th o ugh w e do exclude t h einn e r  2 –3 pixels o f t heprofi lef rom th e fi t. For several ga l axies with *HS T* i m a ges , w e  est im ated the possi ble  e f f ects ofne glecting PS F convol ut i on by  alsoextrac ting pr o f il e s from  ima ges  which ha d b ee n  deconv ol ve d  using  the  L ucy-Ri chards o n al g o rithm (via the < spans t yle=" f ont -vari an t:small - caps ;">IRAF</s pan>
. (The_VLT-SINFONI AO_observations were taken with_offsets to_blank_sky, but_these_were spaced too_far apart in_time for accurate removal_of the overall_background_levels.) The problem is then to find the correct multiplicative scaling $k$ to match_the_background-corrected “inner”_profile_(from_the high-resolution image) with the_“outer” profile (from the low-resolution_image, which_is large enough for its own background to_be_properly estimated), while_also determining the unknown background level $B_{i}$ in the_high-resolution image, so that we can_transform the observed_inner_profile_$I_{i}$ to a corrected_profile $I_{i}^{\prime}$: $$I_{i}^{\prime} \; = \;_k (I_{i} - B_{i}).$$

Fortunately, these two_issues can be dealt with in combination,_by taking advantage of the fact_that the same galaxy was_observed in_both images. The trick is_to identify a_radial overlap_zone between the_two profiles (outside the region where_seeing distorts the_low-resolution data) and iteratively fit for_the_values of $k$_and_$B_{i}$_which minimize_the difference $I_{i}^{\prime}(r)_-_I_{o}(r)$ for_values_of $r$ in the overlap zone_(with_$I_{o}$ being the outer profile). The two_profiles are then merged_at_the best-matching radius in_the overlap region. Although the_profiles we analyze are usually major-axis_cuts, in_practice we_determine $k$ and $B_{i}$ using profiles from ellipse fits with fixed_position angle and ellipticity, to increase_the signal-to-noise ratio. This_approach is_ideal_when the high-_and_low-resolution images_were taken with the same filter; in_some cases,_we are forced to match and_combine profiles from images_with_dissimilar filters (e.g., F814W and $R$,_or $K$ and $z$).

When decomposing our_surface-brightness profiles – which are_typically_cuts_along the major axis of_the galaxy – we do not_attempt to correct_for PSF convolution, though we do exclude_the_inner 2–3 pixels of the profile_from_the fit. For several galaxies with_*HST*_images,_we estimated the possible effects_of neglecting PSF convolution by also_extracting profiles from images which had been deconvolved using_the Lucy-Richardson algorithm_(via the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IRAF</span>