Quoted By:
Dynamic range on cameras were actually pretty decent like 10 years ago already. The real problem with displaying high dynamic range scenes without aggressively tone-mapping the image is the fact that modern displays have very poor dynamic range. IE it can't output at the same contrast as the scene was originally. So you have to discard some tone range in the editing.
Either you crush the blacks which frees display tonal range for mid-tones and highlights.
Or you let the highlights blow out giving you more tonal range for use in the mid-tones and blacks.
Or you compress the mid-tones, flatten them out so that you get more room for both blacks and highlights.
Now I'm talking about the real physical mid-tones and highlights of the actual scene not that which is exposed for in the image.
If you put a sunset shot on a screen. The sun won't actually be bright? Pure white on a normal non-HDR display is weaker than a lightbulb. And the darkest blacks, unless on OLED display isn't really that dark.
So you have physical limits how you can map out the tones from the scene onto the screen. The camera can capture all you really need cos even if you could capture the texture on the moons surface and the foreground on earth in the same exposure. There wouldn't be a way to display that on a screen which much lower dynamic range output without tone-mapping the image. Typically what you would do in that situation is sacrifice the tones between the brights of the moon and the sky because those tones really aren't in the scene to begin with, with some good blending you can just blend it in there nicely. But now you're dealing with a composite. Not a true photograph.
If you think about night scenes. If you were to reproduce the tonality of the scene on the output screen the actual luminance values would probably be below the black levels of what the screen is even capable off.
