Sorry, NO!
NO!
A million times NO!
Your eyes only do 13 f-stops
film has been measured at 10 - 11 f stops (film is analog, it can have measures like 88.73; digital can not)
digital is usually estimated at 4 f-stops - here's why: It has to do with the sensor. Basic sensors are strictly on - off (sensors are derived from EEPROM - Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory - which someone discovered by accident could not just be erased but selectively erased forming images!)
Your 14-bit conversions has to have COLOR information as well as brightness, even if the colors are faked (as all digital colors short of a foveon are) so lets look at it this way: 14 bits is 16,384 discreet color / brightness / etc. possible. that is the TOTAL possible (16 bit would give you 65,536 possible, etc.)
Again, film does not have this issue; it can register a near infinite number of possible colors (your eyes often can not detect them) In fact, film's issue is LOSING Dynamic Range - it loses through the f-stop of the lens, the age of the film; etc. so it loses a total of 2 - 3 stops from what our eyes can see; Digital starts from the ground up with the basic sensor seeing only off and on
Can we make better sensors? The first problem is how long it takes to deal with all this information and get ready to do it again - 14 bits is a handful right now; just imagine opening up to 16 bits as the next step, just how much data is that
Then there is the accuracy of the 14 bits (then expanding to 16) - can we even make sensors that can see 1/2 again as little light as we do now (just to get 1 stop difference) with any accuracy (you must see ALL the colors at that level of darkness - and any computer hardware "geek" will tell you that the problem is that your dark blue, green, red, etc. all are not distinguishable from black on computers, the same issue holds for cameras; there is a color there but it is too dark to see it.
There is a "law of diminishing returns" going on here, as people no longer view images on reflective screen (slides, movies) or paper (prints) we are in an age where the limiting factor is screen accuracy and tolerance for detail - what is your screen;s real resolution and it's color response at that resolution and why should camera makers make images that have detail differences you can't see? Your eyes arfe estimated to make out only 10 million colors, so why try to process many more than that?)
On both sides of this page, at the top, are a gradient in Red. In theory, your display is likely 32 bit (24 bits of color plus other information - cheaper ones use 18 bits of color information dithered to fake the rest) but ask yourself - How many colors do you see?
Camera manufacturers are going to the use of "tricks" like HDR - faking the Dynamic Range that the sensors can not see and the result is often cartoonish for the obvious reason that you are attempting to use the higher bright colors from one exposure, the middle from another and the darker from a third and combine them in an unnatural manner to "stretch" them to fit (faking adding more bits of data by eliminating some thereby losing the transitions - think of those gradients being stripes instead so you stretch the "range" by eliminating all the even bit colors)
Can we have better sensors? Got $2 Million for a camera? (not to mention the size increasing, weight increasing, FPS dropping, etc.)
Wiki has a nice article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth on color depth that may explain the technicals better; but the point is this: there is a natural reason why digital has, and always will have, lower Dynamic Range than film has - it is in the nature of the beast. Digital is far more a daytime media than film - that is also in the nature of the beast.
Rather than bemoaning this fact, people should learn to deal with what they have, to constructively use digital or film for the effects they want
