Cinematic web,engineered — fast AND cinematic, by engineering not luck.

Largest Contentful Paint

A fast poster / first frame paints early — a heavy canvas hero never blocks the largest paint.

Interaction to Next Paint

The hardest one to pass. We break up long main-thread tasks from animation and hydration so the page stays responsive while it moves.

Cumulative Layout Shift

Space is reserved for every canvas and media element up front, so scroll-reveals and late-loading 3D never shift the layout.

Won't 3D and heavy motion slow my site down?

That's the failure mode we exist to avoid. We set a Core Web Vitals budget — LCP ≤ 2.5s, INP ≤ 200ms, CLS ≤ 0.1 at p75 — before writing a single shader, and we hold the cinematic layer to it. Three.js is never in your initial bundle; the 3D and scroll-scrub layer lazy-mounts as isolated client-only islands only when it's near the viewport, while the rest of the page stays static and fast. 'Fast AND cinematic' is honest because we budget for it up front, not because we got lucky.

What about mobile and accessibility?

Both are designed in, not patched on. We ship a clean, fast static experience first and layer motion only for users who haven't asked to reduce it — reduced-motion users get a calm, fully-readable site by default, with essential motion replaced (a fade instead of a zoom) rather than content deleted. On mobile we run a streamlined scene or a static poster, with an automatic WebGL2 fallback for the small share of devices without WebGPU. Autoplaying or looping content gets pause controls, and motion controls are keyboard-accessible with visible focus.

Why not just use Webflow or Framer?

For decorative 3D — a spinning globe, light parallax — builders are fine, and we'll tell you when that's the right call. The moment you need real WebGL shaders, physics, large optimized GLTF, or interactive Three.js / R3F scenes, you have to hand-code it, and a builder's black-box React carries overhead that's flagged for layout-shift under heavy animation. We're software engineers who also do award-tier motion: no platform ceiling, no lock-in, code you own, and performance we can actually guarantee. Webflow's Code Components are a hybrid path — but the heavy component is still hand-engineered by someone like us.

How are you different from a design studio?

Many award-tier sites come from studios that nail the motion but ship it janky — failing INP or CLS, breaking on mobile, ignoring reduced-motion. We bring the same visual ceiling plus the engineering: Core Web Vitals budgets, accessibility, proper asset pipelines, and mobile / fallback handling. We're often the partner a design studio subcontracts the performant build to. We promise craft and performance we hold ourselves to — not 'the best website ever,' and not an award we haven't won.

How long does it take, and how is it priced?

Per project, after we understand the scope — there's no list price for this kind of work. We recommend phased delivery: ship a fast cinematic hero first, then grow into multi-scene or configurator-class work once there's real engagement to justify it, without a rebuild. A focused hero-visual build is a few weeks; an advanced multi-scene or interactive launch is longer. Tell us what the site has to do and we'll scope it honestly. Request a quote — we don't put a fixed number on a custom build.

Do we own the code, or are we locked into you?

You own it. We hand-build on open, standard tools — GSAP, Motion, Lenis, Three.js, React-Three-Fiber — in your own repository, with no proprietary builder runtime in between. There's no per-seat tax, no platform you can't leave, and your own engineers can run and extend the result. Discretion is part of the deal: we don't put your name on our website either.