/3/ - 3DCG

>>981536
If you really need the edges to be super sharp then yeah there might not be an option other than to use more geometry, I still wouldn't say as much as the original had. You'll want to plan out the number of cylinder sides so that they generally line up effectively with the details you want to add to maintain the curves, and once you start adding more geometry you open yourself up to more/worse instances of pinching/smoothing-artifacts that are also sharper.

It's something I would caution against though - or at least do on purpose and not as a crutch. I spent literally years trying to get absolutely perfect subdivision geometry on my meshes while zoomed in 1 million % until I started to see that if you looked close enough you could see the same artifacts on some of my favorite works from artists I really respect in the hardsurface space if you look close enough.

>consider how close you are to the object in practice and don't analyze your mesh for sharpness or artifacting closer than that
Unless the edge needs to hold up as sharp when very close, it's probably going to read better (As well as being easier). If you just subsurface all your edges into sub-pixel 90d angles then what was the point. You can always find shit wrong with subdivision when you zoom into every single junction and it will never look sharp enough.

Meshes in picrel have tradeoffs, and can look basically the same depending on how close/far you are. I'd recommend against right always just because it's hard to work with, but even the low poly one looks fine at most distances imo and if you're baking it into a normal map the softer edge will bake better. You can get sharper edges with closer edge loops but to minimize artifacts it does need to be a little higher poly.