The first pictures of the far side of the Moon by Luna 3 were bad, even by 1959 standards--but they significantly increased our knowledge of the Moon's surface. The first pictures of Mars' surface by Mariner 4 were primitive--but they were light-years ahead of the best pictures from Earth, and taught us much about the planet (which led to incorrect assumptions at first, but that's for another thread). The Galileo descent probe took no pictures at all, but still greatly increased our knowledge of Jupiter. <br /><br />In the <i>Cosmic Connection</i> (IIRC), Carl Sagan talks about a time at the dawn of the space age when cameras on spacecraft were considered by some to be a petty extravagance. He made a case for cameras himself, and it turns out that his POV was the best one. The point is, however much these pictures fall short of the panoramas from Viking, the MERs, Surveyors, what have you, they're better than nothing, and what we see teaches us a great deal about the surface properties and processes of Titan. <br /><br />If the public can't get excited about a few "blurry" pictures from Titan's surface, then that's really not ESA's or NASA's problem. Suppose the pictures really had been super sharp, right down to the surface. What would have changed between that hypothetical parallel universe and the one we're living in now? I'm guessing public interest might have been held for another week, then no one would care anymore. Look at the MERs: a year on the Martian surface, with the best cameras placed on any lander, and the media outside of the space community has all but forgotten about them. Clearly the power of the public's "WOW" is limited even with the best equipment. So again, I say that the supposedly poor imagery is not ESA or NASA's problem. <br /><br />Yes, so the public pays the taxes that pay for ESA and NASA. I say, big deal. Does the American public support the space program ten times more because of the successful MER missions, or MGS, or Odyssey, or Cassini?