Better Than High Definition

I agree that current sensors aren't operating with the dynamic range of the human eye, but I think the end of the article was suggesting a new configuration to simulate that dynamic range.  By taking a sequence of images with different lighting conditions, you could bootstrap together an image with a higher dynamic range.

It sounds hard, but doable for still photos. It sounds crazy hard for full motion video (30fps)  

Synthetic digital images for videogames or animation would not have that limitation and could use the full dynamic range immediately.

I glanced through the article on my way to somewhere else.

They are crazy, I walked by an Flat panel TV the other day, with an picture of the sun blazing through it, and my eyes stung, thats quiet high range enough thank you.  Even if we have an billion to one contrast ratio, our eyes are limited to around 8 bits (linearly).  We like our images to be just nice, otherwise sunglasses would be an bit less popular.

High Dynamic range is useful in processing and production.  Sometime ago, I estimated that an reasonably accurate 16bit(*3=48bit) pixel capture would give enough range of capture to be able to film an scene without much regard to lighting and adjust the exposure afterwards (and with 3D algorithms, the lighting at any point).  In games production, and display processing, the higher bit depth helps prevents certain artifacts and contributes to an more accurate rendition.

As stated before, already displays are many thousands to one in the consumer space, and brightness levels are excessive.  We don't really need higher contrast, unless we want an sunglasses in hand virtual simulation (i.e. yes like Star Trek)

This article seems an bit strange, apart from the above, dated, led backed displays have been out for years and many consumer televisions with it are said to be coming out.  He says that people cannot pick the difference between genuinely high contrast, and low contrast amplified, but we need genuine HDR content because it looks more stunning.  The pixel amplification circuit seems to achieve, in reverse, what we do with contrast and brightness controls on high contrast footage on bright high contrast displays.

I am an member of the digital cinema camera projects over at dvinfo.net alternative imaging forums.  About cameras not been able to record an contrast range as much as the human eye, I submit the following:

http://www.hdrc.com/hdrctech.htm
http://www.planet82.com/korean/product/smpd_01.asp
http://www.altasens.com/
http://www.cypress.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=285&PageID=552&drid=67900&shortlink=&r_folder=&r_title=&ref=drs

Some can deliver the range at descent quality.  About 16bit pixels, an few years ago altasens cameras had been reported to have gone up to 96db s/n ratio.

I think the ultimate goal, as it was put in the article, is to be able to look at a display as if you were looking out a window.  With that in mind I think that it is possible to approach that "clarity" regardless of how someone actually views the image.  In other words, I look out my window and the subjective image might appear different to someone with different sight.  However, that doesn't change what is being viewed; the object doesn't change.  I think if the display reached the level of accurateness as whatever light waves are coming through my window then it doesn't matter how the subject perceives it with sight imperfections.