The 4K release is great, but I'm not a fan of the color tweaking that goes on when Spielberg supervises new transfers. With this it seems like a handful of times the image gets a tad bit of teal and stuff here and there but it's never in your face. Of course I'm only currently able to review the 1080p new disc and not the 4K one. I absolutely hate what happened to Raiders, which I first saw on an advance 35mm new print screening (and wondered why does this look so odd?) and then got a chance to see the untouched new scan that aired on Japanese and other HD channels. (Which was much better.) Unlike Raiders which loses the original mixes in favor of a new IMO crummy remix, CEOT3K seems to use the same 5.1 remix that was on the 2007 Blu-ray and earlier Deluxe DVD. It's a great track that perhaps not as amazing as the 70mm original release Dolby mix we read of on some threads here, is very good and shows how much they were able to with sound design at the time for this particular film. Of course it's standardized as it has to sync to all three cuts much like the Blade Runner archival disc has a single 5.1 track to match three cuts so it could lose out on some of the very subtle differences in mixing just like the BR disc does between 1982 and 1992 soundtracks. However, the mix is 16 bit on the new 4K releases where the 2007 BD had it as 24 bit. I prefer the theatrical cut hands down and hate how the Director's Cut loses important character flaws and details that in a way that reeks of more modern Spielberg tastes. He's stated many times that he would do it differently today particularly redoing the ending (now that he is himself a father), which I understand but of course that would have been a different film altogether. The graininess should be there I think as most of the film was shot by Vilmos Zsigmond and reminds me of his work on the similarly grainy Sugarland Express. As much as I appreciate CE it's not one I often return to and has never quite resonated with me as much as the big Spielberg classics of Duel, Jaws, Raiders, and Temple. But it is a hell of a great film that is truly the adult SF film whereas I find E.T. to be literally aimed at children. Every time I hear E.T. brought up, I immediately bring up Close Encounters to usually some blank stares and perhaps some general recognition. I think it's very weird that this film is not as well known as it should be. I too re-fell in love with this strange mix of hope and 70's era Spielbergian realism with the Criterion Laserdisc and then starting looking at all the different video releases.