No. Absence of processing (modifications to make it look 'better') is the default for all non-consumer devices.
> b) high dynamic range
Yes. In practice log is about choosing which bits of color information to retain and which to throw out, to optimize for space.
Log optimizes for retaining detail in very dark and very bright areas by sacrificing detail in the midtones.
Non-log optimizes for midtones. That's all it is.
So if you have a high contrast scene (bright blue sky, someone sitting in the shade), you'll want to use log. In an average/regular contrast scene, you use non-log, that way you get more detail in the midtones.
In photography, there is no need to optimize for space (video is at least 24 frames/sec, photography is a few frames/sec at most, usually), so log is not a thing - we just capture all the things, all of the time.
Thanks for contributing this comment. It's what finally made it click for me, and how logarithms might come into the picture. Especially the difference between video and still photography was helpful to me as a still photographer!
So basically, when you can't afford the space/bandwidth requirements of "raw" data for video, you need to convert the sensor readings to an actual video format right away (the equivalent of "shooting jpeg" on a still camera.)
If you do that conversion using a monotonic concave function (e.g. log) you do get an actual video, but it looks crappy because the tones are not what we would expect. However, it also retains more of the low-end distinctions of the raw data so it's more flexible in processing.
Hypothetically, I could do the same with still photography, by taking the raw data and converting it to a crappy-looking jpeg and distribute that to someone else, who would then have more freedom in processing than with a regular jpeg, but less than the raw data. I think I got it!
> a) Lack of post processing
No. Absence of processing (modifications to make it look 'better') is the default for all non-consumer devices.
> b) high dynamic range
Yes. In practice log is about choosing which bits of color information to retain and which to throw out, to optimize for space.
Log optimizes for retaining detail in very dark and very bright areas by sacrificing detail in the midtones.
Non-log optimizes for midtones. That's all it is.
So if you have a high contrast scene (bright blue sky, someone sitting in the shade), you'll want to use log. In an average/regular contrast scene, you use non-log, that way you get more detail in the midtones.
In photography, there is no need to optimize for space (video is at least 24 frames/sec, photography is a few frames/sec at most, usually), so log is not a thing - we just capture all the things, all of the time.